Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. The subpoenas called fon data bearing on possible violations of the contract stipulations with reference to the tanneries, rubber, sole-cutting, counter and carton plants. As the defendants do not assert that the subpoenas were too broad if the data sought was relevant, 3 or that such data was not relevant ’f those plants were covered by the contract, their sole objection was that the plants were not coyered. We might dispose of the case on the ground that the testimony taken by the District Court amply proved the fact of coverage, as we are inclined to believe it did.…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited109 opinions
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Burdeau v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by110 opinions
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Endicott Johnson Corp. v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- In Re J. P. Linahan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. IckesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. WalshCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
105 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.