- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Stork v. Townsend
1 F.R.D. 390 (S.D. Ohio 1940)4 Citing cases
Stork v. Townsend
132 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1942) Cited 5 timesIn 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.
State of Maryland ex rel. Carson v. Acme Poultry Corp.
5 F.R.D. 29 (D. Del. 1945) Cited 4 timesUnder 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.
Stork v. Townsend
1 F.R.D. 597 (S.D. Ohio 1940) Cited 2 timesAt 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.’
Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Tel. Co.
91 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1956) Cited 37 timesIn 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.