§Why CasetextPricing

Tower Manufacturing Corporation v. Technology Research Corporation

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for a More Definite StatementWITH SUPPORTING MEMO

7 Cited authorities

  1. Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc.

    929 F. Supp. 562 (D.R.I. 1996)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that RICRA must be read "as broadly as possible - which means that if individuals discriminate in ways that violate the statute, then they must be liable under it"

  2. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Digital Lightwave, Inc.

    196 F.R.D. 698 (M.D. Fla. 2000)   Cited 22 times

    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought action against company president for securities fraud in relation to his alleged scheme to materially overstate company's revenue and earnings in order to secure increased personal line of credit. On defendant's motion to dismiss or for more definite statement, the District Court, Lazzara, J., held that: (1) SEC pled fraud with sufficient specificity and particularity; (2) SEC sufficiently pled scienter; and (3) pledge of stock that had been misvalued

  3. Juneau Square Corp. v. First Wisconsin Nat. Bank of Milwaukee

    60 F.R.D. 46 (E.D. Wis. 1973)   Cited 9 times

    Antitrust action. Additional parties were added by order of the court, 58 F.R.D. 108. On the additional parties' motion to make plaintiffs' second amended complaint more definite and certain, the District Court, Myron L. Gordon, J., held that allegations of plaintiffs' second amended complaint concerning additional defendants' part in alleged conspiracy to monopolize a significant portion of the commercial rental market in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were not so vague or ambiguous or did not contain

  4. Canuel v. Oskoian

    23 F.R.D. 307 (D.R.I. 1959)   Cited 10 times

    Class action brought by named members of independent union on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against named defendants as representatives of international union, an unincorporated labor organization, for injuries allegedly sustained as result of unlawful conspiracy and for malicious interference by International with employment of members of plaintiff class, wherein defendants moved for dismissal, for change of venue, to strike plaintiffs' demand for trial by jury, and for a more

  5. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 357,835 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  6. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  7. Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 4,455 times   31 Legal Analyses
    In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.