Legal Opinion

Hornung v. Eastern Auto. Forwarding Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided February 9, 1951No. Civ. A. No. 26599PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action.

Defendant Eastern Automobile objects to plaintiff’s interrogatories 5 to 26 inclusive, on the grounds (1) that the interrogatories are directed to matters which occurred,at the scene of the accident, and since no officer or agent of Eastern was present at the accident, it is impossible for them to answer, (2) the interrogatories call for hearsay evidence, and (3) the deposition of the driver was taken prior to the serving of the interrogatories, and plaintiff therefore has the information desired.

The first objection perhaps was valid before…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. United States v. 58.16 Acres of LandDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 1975
  3. Republic of China v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1956
  4. B. & S. Drilling Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1959
  5. Greenbie v. NobleDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955

10 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