Legal Opinion

Campbell v. General Motors Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 25, 1952PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

The defendant moves to vacate the plaintiff’s notice to examine a director of the defendant corporation on the ground that a corporate defendant may not be examined by notice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., through a director. A second ground urged is that the date set for the examination is premature in that it should follow, rather than precede, the date noticed for the examination of the plaintiff because the defendant’s notice was served first. In view of *332my determination of the first ground, I need not consider the latter.

Although…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. V. O. Machinoimport v. Clark Equipment Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
  2. Caldwell-Clements, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
  3. Aston v. American Export Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
  4. Mulligan v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1949
  5. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales S. A. v. ClarkDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1948

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Waters v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Rubin v. General Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  3. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp. v. Distillers Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
  4. Klop v. United Fruit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  5. Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-MaatschappijDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1953

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API