Legal Opinion
Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 3, 1945No. 3342PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
On October 16, 1944, counterclaimant filed two motions • for the production of documents under Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, listing seventeen categories of documents required. These documents are not precisely described in these motions other than to call for all documents of certain categories; and some of them call for agreements made by the Alemite Corporation and the Bassick Manufacturing Company, alleged to be subsidiary corporations of plaintiff. There is no showing by affidavit that these documents are in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Kenealy v. Texas Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Thomas French & Sons, Ltd. v. Carleton Venetian Blind Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1939
- United States v. American Optical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- Sonken-Galamba Corporation v. Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. United States Alkali Export Ass'n, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- William A. Meier Glass Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
- Patrick v. Esso Standard Oil CompanyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1957
- Condry v. Buckeye S. S. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
- Corbett v. Columbia Transp. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.