Legal Opinion

Hanson v. Gartland Steamship Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided February 14, 1964No. Civ. No. C 63-356PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CONNELL, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff has moved for production of certain statements of witnesses which were taken by the attorney of defendant Gartland Steamship Company. The witnesses to the alleged accident in suit, Claude A. Goodberry, Alfred Auspsetter, Francis Surwilla, and Homer Buck, are all seamen. Plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to depose or interview personally any of the four, although he has contacted Goodberry and Auspsetter via long distance telephone. The other two, Surwilla and Buck, cannot be found at the addresses furnished by the defendant in response to plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Scourtes v. Fred W. Albrecht Grocery Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1953
  3. Blank v. Great Northern Ry. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1943
  4. Buining v. The S.S. TransporterDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1959
  5. Kane v. News Syndicate Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Poole v. Textron, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2000
  2. McCoo v. Denny's Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2000
  3. Castle v. SHERBURNE CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
  4. M.L.C., Inc. v. North American Philips Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
  5. Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2019

5 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