Legal Opinion

Stom v. Pennsylvania R.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 25, 1953No. 13857PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WELSH, District Judge.

We hold that the matter complained of by the plaintiff has merit. However, we refuse to grant said plaintiff’s motion for judgment under Rule 37, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C., because we feel defendant and its counsel acted in good faith. So that the defendant and its counsel will have knowledge of their duty in the event they are confronted with similar situations in the future the following brief statement of the case is given.

After defendant made answer to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff, plaintiff took the oral depositions of one C. S. Caswell, who had been…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Southard v. Pennsylvania RailroadDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API