Legal Opinion

Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 17, 1955PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DIMOCK, District Judge.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment in which plaintiff seeks an adjudication inter alia, that U. S. Patent No. 2,694,656 is invalid or has not been infringed by plaintiff.

Before me now are two motions by plaintiff, one, pursuant to Rule 30(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., for an order directing defendant to refrain from “propounding questions to plaintiff’s officers and employees directed to lack of jurisdiction of this Court” and the other, pursuant to Rule 34, F.R.C.P., for an order directing defendant to produce documents.

The Motion Under Rule 30(b).

This…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
  3. Morrison Export Co. v. GoldstoneDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1952
  4. Holt v. The James SheridanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Johnson Foils, Inc. v. Huyck Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 1973
  3. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. HughesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
  4. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. ECM Motor Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Federal Communications Commission, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Taft B. Schreiber and McA Inc., Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964

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