Legal Opinion

H. Wagner & Adler Co. v. Mali

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 14, 1935No. 142PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWAN, Circuit Judge.

Upon the filing of the bill of discovery the defendants moved to dismiss on three grounds: For lack of equity; because discovery was sought in aid of an action for treble damages; and because discovery would prove matters which, according to the allegations of the complaint in the action at law, constitute a crime. This motion was denied by Judge Woolsey upon the authority of Baush Mach. Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co., 63 F.(2d) 778 (C. C. A. 2) certiorari denied 289 U. S. 739, 53 S. Ct. 658, 77 L. Ed. 1486, without passing upon the propriety of the interrogatories sought to be…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  4. Heike v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  5. Thomson v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1885

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. United States v. Dunham Concrete Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
  3. National Discount Corp. v. O'MellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
  4. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp.District Court, D. Utah · 1997

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