Legal Opinion
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 6, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
There are four subpoenas duces tecum marked as Exhibit 429 for identification. No question arises on those addressed to Alcoa, Arthur V. Davis and George R. Gibbons. They have made returns that they have no documents coming within the description of those subpoenas. The sole question presented is on the subpoena addressed to Robert E. Withers. At the time of the transactions described in the subpoena to him he was a vice-president and the treasurer of Alcoa.
The basis of the Government’s claim of a right to inspect the documents brought in by Mr. Withers is Rule 34 of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- People Ex Rel. Lemon v. Supreme CourtNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1890
- Banks v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Capital Co. v. FoxCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kenealy v. Texas Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Connecticut Importing Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1940
- United Mercantile Agencies v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, Inc.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
- States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1942
- Service Liquor Distributors, Inc. v. Calvert Distillers Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.