Legal Opinion
Huot v. Gendron
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided December 23, 1971PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POMEROY, Justice.
Following the filing of a complaint alleging alienation of Plaintiff’s wife’s affections, Plaintiff filed interrogatories to be answered by the Defendant pursuant to Rule 33 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ultimately, after an Order • had been issued to compel answers under the provisions of Rule 37 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant declined to answer on the ground, “that his answers to these interrogatories or any one of them might be incriminatory and could be reasonably expected to have an incriminatory effect.” 1
A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gendron v. BurnhamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Bohlin v. Brass Rail, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- Collett v. BitherSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of PortlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1997
- State v. PlaczekSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
- State v. VickersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1973
- Ex Parte WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989
- Toussaint v. PerreaultSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.