Legal Opinion

Inland Bonding Co. v. Mainland Nat. Bank

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided April 19, 1944No. C-2332PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FORMAN, District Judge.,

This is a motion to suppress the deposition of Ronald A. Needham taken pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, upon the grounds that said deposition is irregular and incomplete for the reason that the defendants had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The deposition was taken at the home of the witness, who was in ill health at the time. The attorneys for the respective parties stipulated and agreed, before Mr. Needham’s testimony was taken, to waive all formalities in the taking of said deposition not…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Gay Cottons, United States of America and Shalom Baby WearCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  2. Genevieve Derewecki, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph W. Derewecki, Deceased v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
  3. Rosenthal v. Peoples Cab Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. Union Bank v. SafanieCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1967
  5. Beckwith v. Bethlehem SteelNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1982

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API