Legal Opinion

Parkhurst v. Kling

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 22, 1965No. Civ. A. No. 36164PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KRAFT, District Judge.

Now before the Court for disposition are three motions. Initially the plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers from a deponent concerning telephone conversations between the plaintiff and the witness which plaintiff had recorded. Thereupon, the defendant countered with a motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to comply with three notices of deposition sent to counsel for the plaintiff by defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel then filed a motion for a protective order to preclude the defendant from taking the plaintiff’s deposition except on such *316terms as the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rathbun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Commonwealth v. BRUNOSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  3. Waldo Kent Ferguson and Robert Lowell Rogers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
  4. Commonwealth v. MurraySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  5. United States v. AlexanderDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1963

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. VespeDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1975
  2. Parkhurst v. KlingDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
  3. Kalosha v. NovickNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Smith v. Cincinnati Post & Times StarDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API