Legal Opinion

Bloomer v. Sirian Lamp Co.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided November 13, 1944No. Civil No. 475PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEAHY, District Judge.

The motion is defendant’s under Rule 30 (d), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to quash, in part, subpoena duces tecum served on Diebitsch, an officer of defendant, and to limit the scope of the inquiry. Plaintiffs, as holders of 785 shares of $100 par 8% cumulative preferred stock, seek to obtain a decree requiring defendant, as a solvent company, to be wound up under the supervision of a receiver appointed by this court. The complaint charges that in the past assets of defendant have been dissipated and wasted through grossly negligent or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Guth v. Loft, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1939
  2. Loft, Inc. v. GuthCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1938
  3. In re the E. N. Chilson for a Summary Order for Election of Directors of Public Industrials Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  4. Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1939
  5. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. BurgerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Marshall v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1975
  3. Glick v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1950
  4. Autoridad de las Fuentes Fluviales de Puerto Rico v. Corte de Distrito de BayamónSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947
  5. Triangle Mfg. Co. v. Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1964

3 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