Legal Opinion

Boysell Co. v. Hale

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided November 9, 1939No. 33PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DARR, District Judge.

This is a patent infringement suit. The plaintiff has filed a number of interrogatories under Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The plaintiff • claims that this will materially reduce the number of issues triable in the case. The defendant has filed a number of objections to answering any of the interrogatories.

I. The defendant’s • first objection is that all the interrogatories constitute a “fishing expedition.”. A general objection of this kind is not good and this ground of the motion is overruled. Laverett v. Continential…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Laverett v. Continental Briar Pipe Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1938
  2. Beacon Folding MacH. Co. v. Rotary MacH. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927
  3. Paraffine Cos., Inc. v. WielandDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1927

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bowles v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1945
  2. Stover v. Central Broadcasting CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
  3. Byers Theaters, Inc. v. MurphyDistrict Court, D. West Virginia · 1940
  4. Chandler v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1940
  5. American S.S. Co. v. Buckeye S.S. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941

5 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