Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co.

E.D. New York

Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co.

126 F. Supp. 154, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedAugust 6, 1954

DocketCiv. A. No. 14413

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 126 F. Supp. 154 (Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co., 126 F. Supp. 154, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465 (E.D.N.Y. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

BRUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.

The cases submitted by the plaintiff are not in point. The recoveries therein were after trial. There is no authority for the relief sought, by way of a summary proceeding or motion, excepting where there is no genuine issue of fact, the Courts have entertained motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. See Rackus v. Moore-McCormack, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 185; Brady v. Waterman, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 629.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.

The cases submitted by the plaintiff are not in point. The recoveries therein were after trial. There is no authority for the relief sought, by way of a summary proceeding or motion, excepting where there is no genuine issue of fact, the Courts have entertained motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. See Rackus v. Moore-McCormack, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 185; Brady v. Waterman, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 629.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 F. Supp. 154, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claudio-v-sinclair-refining-co-nyed-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack