Hindleman v. Specialty Salesman Magazine, Inc.

1 F.R.D. 278, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1930
District Court, N.D. Illinois·Decided January 26, 1940·No. No. 738·Published

Opinion

WOODWARD, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves to strike certain portions of defendants’ answer. The motion must be allowed as to Paragraphs 9(A) to 104, both inclusive. From a mere inspection of the answer it is obvious that these paragraphs, together with the voluminous exhibits accompanying the answer, is a gross violation of Rules 8(b) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. fol[279] lowing section 723c. No discussion is necessary to support this conclusion.

The court has heretofore overruled the defenses at law set up in Paragraphs 1(a) do (G), both inclusive.

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

Hindleman v. Specialty Salesman Magazine, Inc., 1 F.R.D. 278, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1930 (N.D. Ill. 1940).

1 F.R.D. 278 (Hindleman v. Specialty Salesman Magazine, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.