Legal Opinion

Schuricht v. McNutt

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided April 20, 1928No. Nos. 55806, 55807PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the motion of counsel for Burns and Willis to quash a subpoena duces tecum addressed to Remington Arms Company and to one Herrmann and one Hadley, alleged to be employees of the Remington Arms Company, in connection with depositions being taken in the above interferences pending in the United States Patent Office.

A motion was also made by counsel for McNutt to enforce obedience to the subpoenas. Both motions were heard on March 27, 1928. Counsel for Bums and Willis, and counsel for McNutt filed briefs following an extended oral…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
  3. Permutit Co. v. Harvey Laundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  4. General Electric Co. v. Hoskins Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
  5. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Claude Neon Electrical Products, Inc. v. Brilliant Tube Sign Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1930
  2. Chad Lancaster v. City of Phoenix, et al.District Court, D. Arizona · 2026
  3. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. George A. Breon & Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API