Russ v. Baltimore & O. R.

11 F.R.D. 298, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3615
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedFebruary 20, 1951
DocketCiv. No. 27904
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F.R.D. 298 (Russ v. Baltimore & O. 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.

Bluebook
Russ v. Baltimore & O. R., 11 F.R.D. 298, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3615 (N.D. Ohio 1951).

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

Motion for a more definite statement.

Plaintiff in the complaint merely states that while her decedent was engaged in his regular employment as a fireman he was caused to fall beneath the wheels of defendant’s locomotive, because of defendant’s negligence.

This statement of the accident conforms to the requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim as found in Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A. If defendant feels it cannot properly deny such an allegation, it may state that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and such statement will have the effect of a denial. Any information desired then can be obtained by use of the discovery rules.

Motion denied.

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

Related

McBeath v. Pierce
13 F.R.D. 143 (D. Nebraska, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 F.R.D. 298, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russ-v-baltimore-o-r-ohnd-1951.