Legal Opinion

Dugan v. Sperry Gyroscope Co.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided December 9, 1940No. 1406PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order that defendant is not required to answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 propounded under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the attorneys for the parties having agreed among themselves that Interrogatories Nos. 1, 7 and 8 are to be answered and that Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are to be withdrawn.

Undoubtedly the new rules have made changes and patent causes should yield as far as possible to the objectives of the simplified procedure provided for by the Federal Rules…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Singer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Canuso v. City of Niagara FallsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1945
  3. Gagen v. Northam Warren Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  4. Karl E. Stiegele and Speidel Corporation v. J. M. Moore Import-Export Co., Inc., Moore Products Corporation and Joseph Mitchell MooreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
  5. Chenault v. Nebraska Farm Products, Inc.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1949

3 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