Legal Opinion

Ransom v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided August 13, 1985No. 229-84CPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MAYER, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to RUSCC 36(a) requests a determination of the sufficiency of defendant’s objections to requests for admission. Plaintiffs also move for an order compelling discovery under RUSCC 37(a)(2), and their reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred in preparing this motion as permitted by RUSCC 37(a)(4).

The dispute arises from plaintiffs’ combined requests for admission and interrogatories. This approach required that if defendant denied a request for admission it provide detailed information about the bases for the denial in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. City of Rome v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. McSparran v. HaniganDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. City of Rome v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1978
  4. Williams v. KriegerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  5. McGonigle v. BaxterDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Thompson v. BeasleyDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2015
  2. Abbott v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1997
  3. West Bay Builders, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  4. S.A. Healy Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
  5. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017

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