United States v. Ascher

2 Citing cases

  1. Broadcasting Corp. v. Newhouse

    14 F.R.D. 168 (N.D.N.Y. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    The Court is impressed that same can be determined by a motion main by the plaintiff which would raise the legal sufficiency of the avoidance pleaded, F.R.C.P., rule 12(f), or same could be determined by motion of defendants for judgment on the pleadings. F.R.C.P., rule 12(c). If the determination of facts are necessary for the decision, such facts can be developed as suggested in United States v. Ascher, D.C., 41 F.Supp. 895, at page 897.

  2. Ray v. Rambaud

    103 Ariz. 186 (Ariz. 1968)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that the personal representative properly published the notice to creditors, but no claim was timely presented

    The authorities uniformly hold that a litigant does not have a vested right in any given mode of procedure, and so long as a substantial and efficient remedy is provided, due process of law is not denied by a change in remedy. Denver R.G.W.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 387 U.S. 556, 87 S.Ct. 1746, 18 L.Ed.2d 954 (1967); Swanson v. Bates, 170 F.2d 648 (10 Cir. 1948); United States v. Ascher, 41 F. Supp. 895 (D.C.Cal. 1941). This Court, in Brotherhood of American Yeomen v. Manz, 23 Ariz. 610, 206 P. 403 (1922), made a similar statement of the rule wherein it said: