Legal Opinion
In re the Petition of Gary Construction, Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided January 25, 1983No. Civ. A. No. 82-X-218PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PETITION
CARRIGAN, District Judge.
Petitioners have invoked Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a) in a petition to perpetuate the testimony of twenty-four persons. They state that they anticipate filing an action against five named “proposed” defendants. The “proposed” defendants and witnesses (“respondents”) have filed both a motion for a protective order and a response to the Rule 27 petition. On December 10,1982,1 heard oral argument on the issue whether Rule 27 applies in these circumstances. At that hearing, I gave the petitioners leave to file an amended petition and gave the respondents leave…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re BolandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1978
- In re North CarolinaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- In re ExsteinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1942
3Cited by11 opinions
- Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
- Allen v. AllenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
- Daniels v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Sandmann v. PetronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Sowers v. LaPorte Superior Court, No. IIIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.