Leding v. United States Rubber Co.
District Court, D. Montana
1Opinion of the Court
MURRAY, Chief Judge.
In each of the above cases, which are brought by the respective plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by them as a result of wearing rubber mine boots alleged to have been negligently manufactured by defendant, the plaintiff served interrogatories on the defendant, 10 in number. Defendant answered all of the interrogatories except No. 5, to which it replied “Defendant is advised it does not have to answer this interrogatory since it calls for privileged matter, i.e., counsel’s work product”. Interrogatory No. 5 reads as follows:
“5. The defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Sachs v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
3Cited by10 opinions
- Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1975
- Cranford v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
- United States v. NYSCO Laboratories, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1960
- State Ex Rel. Willey v. WhitmanArizona Supreme Court · 1962
- Martínez Rivera v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.