Hazen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.
This text of 9 F.R.D. 553 (Hazen v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie 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.
Opinion
This is a personal injury action.
Defendant moves that the plaintiff make his complaint more definite and certain.
It has been held by this Court that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12 (e), 28 U.S.C.A., may be used to require a more definite statement only when the pleadings objected to are so vague or ambiguous that a responsive answer cannot be framed.
It is sufficient to say that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any such defect. If any defect appears, it is in plaintiff’s failure to carry out the mandate of Rules 8(a) (2) and 8(e).
The information desired by defendant can be obtained by recourse to the Rules of Discovery.
The motion will be overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 F.R.D. 553, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazen-v-pittsburgh-lake-erie-r-ohnd-1949.