Legal Opinion

Chippona v. General Railway Signal Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 23, 1936PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

There have now been called to our attention the cases of Donoghue v. Callanan (152 App. Div. 162) and Chojnacki v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (76 Misc. 427) in which it was held that a provision for inspection and discovery permitted as incidental thereto the taking of photographs and the taking of samples for analysis. In view of these decisions we have reached the conclusion that the order here affirmed does not overpass the limits stated in section 324 of the Civil Practice Act. This decision is in part inconsistent with our ruling in Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co. (248 App.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Donoghue v. CallananAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  2. Chojnacki v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1912
  3. Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mangione v. General Railway Signal Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API