Stork v. Townsend

4 Citing cases

  1. Stork v. Townsend

    132 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1942)   Cited 5 times
    In Stork v. Townsend, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390, a motion for a bill of particulars was considered to be the appropriate method of attacking inadequate claims for special damages.

    Affirmed. See, also, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390, 597. Elmer H. Groefsema, of Detroit, Mich., and Daniel I. Rosenthal, of Dayton, Ohio, for appellant.

  2. State of Maryland ex rel. Carson v. Acme Poultry Corp.

    5 F.R.D. 29 (D. Del. 1945)   Cited 4 times

    Under Rule 9(g), when items of special damage are claimed, they should be specifically stated. See Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. National Carbon Co., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 454, 455; Stork v. Townsend, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390.          Defendant's motion will be granted.

  3. Stork v. Townsend

    1 F.R.D. 597 (S.D. Ohio 1940)   Cited 2 times

    At the same time the court treated a portion of the motion to strike as a motion for a bill of particulars. Stork v. Townsend et al., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390.          On October 15, 1940, plaintiff filed a document entitled ‘ Amendment to Bill of Particulars.’

  4. Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Tel. Co.

    91 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1956)   Cited 37 times
    In Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Tel. Co., Fla. 1956, 91 So.2d 320, a complaint was dismissed because it failed to specify with particularity the special damages claimed by plaintiff.

    Rule 1.11(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In Stork v. Townsend, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390, a motion for a bill of particulars was considered to be the appropriate method of attacking inadequate claims for special damages. Applying these rules to the situation before us we are of the view that if the complaint states a claim upon which at least nominal damages may be awarded, then a motion to dismiss such a complaint should not be sustained.