Heinze v. Superior Transport Co.

N.D. Ohio

Heinze v. Superior Transport Co.

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

District Court, N.D. Ohio·Decided December 6, 1950·No. Civ. No. 6359·Published

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.

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

Pincite

96 F. Supp. 479 (Heinze v. Superior Transport Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.