Legal Opinion

Water Hammer Arrester Corp. v. Tower

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided September 25, 1947No. Civ. No. 756PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DUFFY, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiff under Rule 37(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c to require the defendant to pay expenses and attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff in making proof of the truth of matters set forth in its requests for admissions, and which the defendant refused to admit or answered unsatisfactorily.

Rule 37(c), F.R.C.P., provides: “If a party, after being served with a request under Rule 36 to admit the genuineness of any documents or the truth of any matters of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof and if the party…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Water Hammer Arrester Corp. v. TowerDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1944

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hillman v. StultsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Water Hammer Arrester Corp. v. TowerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
  3. Baltimore Aircoil Co. v. York Division, Borg-Warner Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API