Heinze v. Superior Transport Co.

N.D. Ohio

Heinze v. Superior Transport Co.

96 F. Supp. 479, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1971

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedDecember 6, 1950

DocketCiv. No. 6359

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. Supp. 479 (Heinze v. Superior Transport Co.) 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

Heinze v. Superior Transport Co., 96 F. Supp. 479, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1971 (N.D. Ohio 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

KLOEB, District Judge.

The motion of the defendant for an order requiring a more definite statement of the claim of plaintiff is overruled as to all specifications therein.

It appears to the Court that the complaint fairly and fully discloses a cause of action, and that the matters inquired into in the motion more properly constitute evidence that may become known to the defendant through the application of one or more of the methods of discovery provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

An order is drawn accordingly.

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

KLOEB, District Judge.

The motion of the defendant for an order requiring a more definite statement of the claim of plaintiff is overruled as to all specifications therein.

It appears to the Court that the complaint fairly and fully discloses a cause of action, and that the matters inquired into in the motion more properly constitute evidence that may become known to the defendant through the application of one or more of the methods of discovery provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

An order is drawn accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. Supp. 479, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinze-v-superior-transport-co-ohnd-1950.