TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

Barrom v. Roux Lab'ys, Inc., 3 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 1, 1942
Judges
Coxe
Citations
3 F.R.D. 1751942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1826

Opinion of the Court — Coxe

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

COXE, District Judge.

It cannot be said at this time that the challenged allegations of the complaint have no bearing on the subject matter of the action. That is a question which should properly be left to the trial judge to determine when evidence is offered. Motions to strike are not favored, and I cannot see that the defendants will in any way be prejudiced by allowing the allegations to stand.

The motion of the defendants to strike is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2022: 120222026peak 2022 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Collins v. Anthem, Inc.No. 2:20-cv-01969 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2022)

Most recent

  1. Collins v. Anthem, Inc.No. 2:20-cv-01969 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2022)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list