Hardin v. Interstate Motor Freight System, Inc.

26 F. Supp. 97, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3093
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJanuary 3, 1939
Docket7-Civ
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 26 F. Supp. 97 (Hardin v. Interstate Motor Freight System, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hardin v. Interstate Motor Freight System, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 97, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3093 (S.D. Ohio 1939).

Opinion

NEVIN, District Judge.

This cause is now before the court on a motion filed November 30, 1938, wherein defendant seeks to have certain allegations stricken from the petition, all as in the motion set forth. The motion contains seven separate paragraphs containing requests to strike.

Upon a consideration of the motion and the briefs of counsel, the court finds and concludes as follows:

1. So much of the motion as is contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the court finds not well taken, and the motion as to each of said paragraphs is overruled.
2. The court will consider so much of the motion as is contained in paragraph 3 thereof as a motion to strike out the entire third paragraph of the petition beginning with the words “said collision” and ending with the words “said highway”, and as such the court finds it to be well taken and sustains the same, and said third paragraph is ordered stricken in its entirety from the petition.

Counsel for plaintiff, in their briefs, refer to the New Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and particularly to Form 9 attached thereto. As they state, the New IJules and this form indicate that a mere general charge of negligence is sufficient, without specification. For this reason, based on their own contention, if form 9 is to be followed, the allegations contained in the third paragraph of the petition have now no place therein.

An order may be drawn in keeping with this decision. Plaintiff may have 20 days after the order is filed in which to file her amended petition.

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

Related

Cranston v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
16 F.R.D. 318 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1954)
Prescan v. Aliquippa & Southern Railroad
16 F.R.D. 272 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1954)
Bush v. Skidis
8 F.R.D. 561 (E.D. Missouri, 1948)
Price v. Muth Bros.
7 F.R.D. 424 (S.D. Ohio, 1947)
Lincoln v. Herr
6 F.R.D. 209 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1946)
Contogeorge v. Spyrou
7 F.R.D. 223 (S.D. New York, 1946)
Martz v. Abbott
2 F.R.D. 17 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 F. Supp. 97, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardin-v-interstate-motor-freight-system-inc-ohsd-1939.