Legal Opinion

Jennings v. Beach

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided October 23, 1940No. 815PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWEENEY, District Judge.

The plaintiffs’ action grows out of an automobile accident, and in the writ they have named the insurance company insuring the defendant’s car as a party defendant.

The accident is alleged to have occurred outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The avowed purpose of the plaintiffs in naming the insurance company as a defendant is “principally to enable the plaintiffs to obtain information under Rule 36, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, as to what provisions the policy contains and as to whether it indemnifies the individual defendants against the kind of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lorando v. GethroMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  2. Federal Housing Administrator v. ChristiansonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1939
  3. Pitcairn v. RumseyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1940
  4. Lounsbury v. McCormickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  5. Buoniconti v. LeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hoosier Cas. Co. of Indianapolis, Ind. v. FoxDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1952
  2. Watts v. MannCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  3. Roddy & McNulty Insurance Agency, Inc. v. A. A. Proctor & Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
  4. United States v. Cisco Aircraft, Inc.District Court, D. Montana · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API