Legal Opinion
Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 17, 1942PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RIFKIND, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks an order, pursuant to Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, vacating defendants’ notice of examination, or in the alternative, requiring the depositions of the named witnesses to be taken only on written interrogatories and vacating the notice with respect to the examination of unidentified witnesses.
The complaint contains two counts. One is for damages by reason of the alleged unauthorized use by defendants of plaintiff’s name, “Dinty Moore”, for advertising and trade purposes in connection with the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mackerer v. New York Cent. R.District Court, E.D. New York · 1940
- Woodbury v. Andrew Jergens Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Orange County Theatres, Inc. v. LevyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Clair v. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
- Drake v. Line-a-Time Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Branyan v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart MaatschappijDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1953
- Connell v. Biltmore Security Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1966
- Boiczuk v. Baltimore & O. R.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944
- Stevens v. Minder Const. Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Adkins v. International Harvester Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.