Legal Opinion
Boiczuk v. Baltimore & O. R.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 2, 1944PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
In this court other judges have heretofore rendered decisions which, as I read them, determine the practice and all law questions presented by the pending motion. I regard it as my duty to follow those decisions and I shall refer to no other.
In the absence of agreement between the parties an oral deposition (such as is sought in this case) must be taken in compliance with the rules. Spaeth v. Warner Bros. Pictures, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 729, 730, second paragraph of the opinion.
Unless deposition of DeLuco be taken by consent on written interrogatories, or counsel arrange…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cohen v. Pennsylvania R. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Spaeth v. WarNer Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Orange County Theatres, Inc. v. LevyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Freeman v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Madison v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1975
- Branyan v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart MaatschappijDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1953
- United States Steel Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- Adkins v. International Harvester Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1956
- Weeks v. Baltimore & O. R.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.