Legal Opinion
Mulligan v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 24, 1949PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RIFKIND, District Judge.
In this action, which is in admiralty, respondents move for an order vacating libellant’s notice to take the deposition upon oral examination of officers, agents, and employees in charge of the steamship Daniel Hiester, for purpose of discovery. The question presented is whether the practice in admiralty authorizes such discovery procedure.
Unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26, 28 U.S.C.A., the Admiralty Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., do not explicitly authorize discovery by oral examination. Nevertheless, two district judges have permitted the practice. Brown v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brown v. Isthmian Steamship Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
- United States v. GreenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
3Cited by9 opinions
- Miner v. AtlassSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Dowling v. Isthmian S.S. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Mercado v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
- H. Leslie Atlass v. Hon. Julius H. Miner and Hon. Edwin A. Robson, Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.