Huber Baking Co. v. Frank C. Sparks Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Layton, J.:
As far as can be ascertained the question presented is one of first impression. The text authorities hold almost uniformly that the Rule was designed for the protection of the deponent or a party other than the examiner on account of the right of unlimited discovery accorded by Rule 26. 1 Dyer-Smith, Federal Examina tians Before Trial, p. 43; 6 Cyc. of Federal Practice (2d Ed.) Sec. 2657; 2 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 715. Curiously enough, however, the conclusions of the authors of the texts just cited are at variance with the language of the Rule…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Doe v. RoeSuperior Court of Delaware · 1901
3Cited by8 opinions
- BCI Communication Systems, Inc. v. Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1986
- Williams v. Electronic Control Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1975
- In Re Estate of GareyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Huber Baking Co. v. Frank C. Sparks Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1951
- Dunlap v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.