Legal Opinion
Uram
United States Court of Claims
Decided March 17, 1978No. 238-76PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*419"This case comes before the court on plaintiffs petition pursuant to Rule 53, for review of a procedural ruling of Trial Judge Francis C. Browne denying plaintiffs motion to compel a noticed third party, CMI Films, Inc. (CMI), to answer interrogatories. Because we believe that Judge Browne’s ruling is in compliance with this court’s third party jurisdiction under Rule 41(a), we affirm.
"In this complex copyright infringement case, the Government has moved, as is its prerogative under Rule 41(a), that notice be given to two parties from whom the Department of the Army obtained the materials…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Bowser, Inc. v. The United States and General Steel Tank Co., Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Carrier Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- Philadelphia Suburban Corp.United States Court of Claims · 1976
3Cited by13 opinions
- Penda Corporation (Now Trienda Corporation) v. The United States, and Cadillac Products, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- RSH Constructors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
- Peoples Apparel, Ltd.United States Court of Claims · 1980
- Del-Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
- Rice v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.