New Castle v. Rand
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.
Traditionally courts in New Hampshire have proceeded on the basic assumption that the orderly dispatch of judicial business is accomplished more efficiently where every plaintiff and every defendant is given adequate opportunity to properly prepare his case before trial. LaCoss v. Lebanon, 78 N. H. 413; Lefebvre v. Somersworth Co., 93 N. H. 354, 358; State v. Cote, 95 N. H. 108, 111. Ever since the leading case of Reynolds v. Fibre Co., 71 N. H. 332, 345, parties, under the discretionary control of the Trial Court, have been allowed to obtain information by means of discovery as well as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- In Re Peters EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1949
- In Re Central Vermont Public Service Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1947
3Cited by6 opinions
- Harrison v. Greeneville Ready-Mix, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1967
- Appeal of Public Service Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1988
- Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. BartonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- State Ex Rel. Pack v. West Tennessee Distributing Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1968
- Florida Keys Boys Club, Inc. v. PelekisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.