Legal Opinion

Frank S. Sinkwich, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided June 20, 1988No. Civ. A. No. 86-59-ATH (WDO)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

OWENS, Chief Judge.

Defendant Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (“Texaco”), has noticed the taking of the deposition of James Nay, its employee who on behalf of Texaco made the management decision that resulted in this lawsuit and who at the time he made that decision was headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Subsequently Mr. Nay was transferred by Texaco to Houston, Texas, where he now works and resides. Texaco states that assuming the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the use of Mr. Nay’s deposition at trial, it intends to use his deposition in lieu of Mr. Nay being present at trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
  2. Houser v. Snap-On Tools CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1962
  3. Terry v. Modern WoodmenDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1972
  4. Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of EducationDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1966
  5. Leist v. Union Oil Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1979

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Glaverbel Societe Anonyme & Fosbel, Inc. v. Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API