Legal Opinion

Steelman v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided April 24, 1964No. Civ. A. No. 1842PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECKER, District Judge.

Motion to Strike and to Suppress

Plaintiff has propounded interrogatories “to be answered under oath by E. C. Curtis, attorney for defendants.” Defendants have moved to strike and suppress the interrogatories on the ground that they are not addressed to an adverse party. Defendants’ position is correct and the motion will be sustained. Hick*121man v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, 1. c. 458. However, it is noted that interrogatories properly addressed to the defendants will require answers containing all information possessed hy, or in the knowledge of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
  3. Rekeweg v. Federal Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1961
  4. Wycoff v. NicholsDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1963
  5. Butler v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1964

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Zaentz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979
  2. Hawes Firearms Co. v. EdwardsAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
  3. United States v. ProjanskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968
  4. Gonsalves v. City of New BedfordDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1996
  5. State v. MahoneyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975

1 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