Legal Opinion

Fishman v. Marcouse

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 29, 1940No. 738PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARD, District Judge.

Upon motion of the plaintiff, Morris Fishman, for discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, copying or photographing, the Court is urged to enter an order directing the defendant employer, in accordance with Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to produce the records, payroll books, checks and other books and records indicating the number of hours of employment of, and the payments to Edith Marie DeFelice and others similarly situated for work done by them for the defendant. This suit was brought pursuant to…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. United States v. Rock Royal Co-Operative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Mulford v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  5. Yazoo & M. V. R. v. ZemurrayCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1917

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
  2. Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1953
  3. Martin v. Lain Oil & Gas Co.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 1941
  4. Eastern States Corp. v. EislerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
  5. Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1942

9 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