Legal Opinion
McCarthy v. Palmer
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided October 16, 1939No. 218PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
During the course of the trial of this action, the Court had occasion to rule that if the plaintiff inspected a document produced by the defendants after demand, the document became admissible on behalf of the defendants even though the plaintiff refused to place it in evidence. Since this rule is at variance with the New York rule as expressed in Carradine v. Hotchkiss, 120 N.Y. 608, 24 N.E. 1020, and Smith v. Rentz, 131 N.Y. 169, 30 N.E. 54, 15 L.R.A. 138, it, is perhaps advisable to consider the background of the so-called federal rule followed by the Court.
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Terry v. . JewettNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Smith v. . RentzNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Carradine v. . HotchkissNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Briggs v. . N.Y.C. and H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Brabham v. Baltimore & O. R.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Hoffman v. PalmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- United States v. William H. Price, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1961
- Hickman v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.