Legal Opinion
Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Lemay
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided February 19, 1981No. C-3-80-362PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ENTRY ON MOTIONS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION, SEEKING TO COMPEL WARNICK TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS ON ORAL DEPOSITION, OVERRULED; PLAINTIFFS’ AND WARNICK’S MOTION, SEEKING ORDER OF COURT QUASHING OR STAYING A DEPOSITION SUBPOENA SERVED UPON WARNICK, DEEMED MOOT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION, SEEKING AWARD OF EXPENSES IN OPPOSING MOTION TO QUASH OR STAY SUBPOENA, OVERRULED
RICE, District Judge.
The captioned cause came to be heard upon three motions, to wit:(1) the Defendants’ motion seeking an Order of the Court compelling David Warnick to answer certain questions on oral deposition;(2) the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Clark v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of MissouriCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
- CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA v. Westinghouse Electric CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Nutmeg Insurance v. Atwell, Vogel & SterlingDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1988
- Nunes-Correia v. HaigDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- In re Dayco Corp. Derivative Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1983
- A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1987
- Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.