Gilbert v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R.

9 F.R.D. 562, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3282
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedSeptember 26, 1949
DocketCiv. No. 26629
StatusPublished

This text of 9 F.R.D. 562 (Gilbert v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R.) 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
Gilbert v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R., 9 F.R.D. 562, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3282 (N.D. Ohio 1949).

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.

Defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement as to certain matter in [563]*563the complaint and to strike certain other matter.

Considering the motion in the light of Form 14 in the Appendix of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the plaintiff should have stated, at least generally, what duties he was performing at the time of his injury. Sustained as to paragraph 1 of the motion.

The injuries appear to be described with sufficient particularity to enable defendant to respond. Overruled as to paragraph 2 of the motion.

While the allegations of the acts of negligence are somewhat confusing, it is impossible at this point to separate the wheat from the chaff. There can be no harm to defendant if paragraph 8 is permitted to stand for the time being.

Overruled as to other paragraphs of the motion.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F.R.D. 562, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-pittsburgh-l-e-r-ohnd-1949.