Legal Opinion
Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided October 27, 1961No. Civ. A. No. 860-61PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
The defendant corporation objects to a set of interrogatories served by the plaintiff and addressed to Paul B. Wish-art, President, Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, on the ground that under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., interrogatories may be directed only to an adverse party.
The objection is well founded and will be sustained. There is no warrant in Rule 33 for the service of interrogatories on anyone except an adverse party. There is a provision that if the party served is a corporation or a partnership or association, the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- The Black Panther Party v. William French Smith, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
- Straley v. Idaho Nuclear CorporationIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Mowry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Smith v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1962
- Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'nDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.