Legal Opinion
Benedict v. Seiberling
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided January 5, 1927No. 702PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KILLITS, District Judge.
The motion immediately before us is entitled, “Amendment to Motion for Leave to Subpoena Witnesses.” It is supported by another entitled “Amendment to Motion to Quash Service of Summons.” In the body of neither is there any statement that requires the court to con•sider the previous motions, which were orally denied for reasons appearing upon the face thereof. The original motion for leave to subpoena witnesses asked also for subpoenas duces tecum against four persons. In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 77, 26 S. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652, we orally held that the…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Gilbert v. DavidSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Barry v. EdmundsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Blair v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Steinberg v. ToroDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1951
- First Congregational Church & Society of Burlington v. Evangelical & Reformed ChurchDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Saalfrank v. O'DANIELDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1975
- Efentakis v. S/T World LegionDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1958
- Donovan v. Queensboro Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1947
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.