Legal Opinion
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 3, 1951No. Civ. 9728PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEWART, District Judge.
On July 20, 1951, plaintiff made ex parte application to the Court as required in Rule 26(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., for leave to take oral depositions of the individual defendants. At the time of the application none of the defendants had been served, but counsel urged upon the Court the desirability of permitting the depositions to be taken in advance of the twenty-day period provided in Rule 26(a), among other reasons because the defendants were numerous and were widely separated and much time and expense could be saved by serving the notice of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
- Watkins v. Hudson Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- United Office & Professional Workers v. Monumental Life Ins.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Drake Bakeries Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers InternationalSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- McCarroll v. Los Angeles County District Council of CarpentersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Signal-Stat Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Local 475, United Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers of America (Ue)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Ry., & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1063Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1952
- Penn Tanker Co. of Delaware v. C.H.Z. Rolimpex, WarszawaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.