Legal Opinion
Mangual v. Prudential Lines, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 21, 1971No. Civ. A. No. 70-184PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
BRODERICK, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on “defendant’s motion for an order excluding plaintiff from using certain of defendant’s answers to interrogatories at trial.” The answers sought to be excluded are answers which admit the presence of a rug at the time and place where the injury to plaintiff occurred. Said answers were seasonably amended to deny the presence of the rug. While said pretrial motion appears on its face to be premature, we deem an early answer appropriate since if we rule in plaintiff’s favor defense- counsel may have to take the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Treharne v. CallahanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Grace & Co. (Pacific Coast), a Corporation v. City of Los Angeles, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Allen L. Lasiter v. Washington National Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- United States v. Linda Jean Freeman, AKA Laurie DiecidueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- In Re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2010
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Perez v. KwasnyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.