Getzy v. Miller

9 F.R.D. 564, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3284
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedSeptember 16, 1949
DocketCiv. Nos. 26551, 26552
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 F.R.D. 564 (Getzy v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Getzy v. Miller, 9 F.R.D. 564, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3284 (N.D. Ohio 1949).

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

These are actions for damages for personal injuries arising out of the same mishap, a collision involving a truck and an automobile in which plaintiffs were riding.

Defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement as to the alleged acts of negligence of defendant and as to the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ injuries.

1. This Court has held many times that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, see Rule 8(a) and (e) and Form 9, Appendix of Forms, 28 U.S.C.A., it is not necessary to set forth alleged acts of negligence.

2. These complaints state only that plaintiffs sustained “serious and permanent bodily injuries.” It would not be a great hardship upon plaintiffs to set forth, withrout going into great detail, the general nature of their injuries. Form 9, liberal as it is, suggests such a general statement as to the nature of the injuries and a complaint should not fall below the minimum standard of Form 9.

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

Related

Higgins v. Hermes
552 P.2d 1227 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F.R.D. 564, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/getzy-v-miller-ohnd-1949.