Case Name: HAVILAND CLAY WORKS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1955-12-13
Citations: 169 F. Supp. 61
Docket Number: Civ. No. 7379
Parties: HAVILAND CLAY WORKS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 169
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
HAVILAND CLAY WORKS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
Civ. No. 7379.
United States District Court N. D. Ohio, W. D.
Dec. 13, 1955.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Joseph B. Brennan, Washington, D. C., Effler, Eastman, Stichter & Smith, Roger H. Smith, Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Sumner Canary, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Clarence M. Condon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, for defendant.

Opinion:
KLOEB, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves the Court for summary judgment in its favor in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56(a) and (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., on the ground that the pleadings and five affidavits attached thereto show that plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.,
Defendant moves the Court to deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are genuine issues as to material facts, and that the action should be tried upon the factual issues, and in support thereof attaches to its motion an affidavit designated Exhibit A and a statement of authorities designated Exhibit B.
We are of the opinion that the supporting papers to the motion filed by defendant are inadequate in form and content to raise a genuine issue as to any ma terial fact. Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 469; Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corp. v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800, 64 S.Ct. 431, 88 L.Ed. 483, and Rule 56(e) F.R.C.P.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is sustained. United States of America v. Cherokee Brick & Tile Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 424, affirming Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. v. United States, D.C.M.D.Ga.1954, 122 F.Supp. 59; New Idria Quicksilver Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 918; International Talc Co., Inc., v. Commissioner, 15 T.C. 981. The latter two cases are cited and relied upon in the Cherokee Brick case in 122 F.Supp. at page 65.
Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part the following :
" Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rules 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in Rule 41(b)."
Judgment may enter accordingly.