Legal Opinion
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
District Court, D. New York
Decided February 8, 1939PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
Yesterday I had before me a motion by Alcoa to quash a subpoena duces tecum dated January 6, 1939, which is Exhibit 574 for Identification. Items 7 and 8 have been disposed of, — at least for the present, —by agreement of counsel recorded in the minutes. So there are left for consideration items 1 to 6, 9 and 10.
As indicated yesterday, it seems to me better procedure that I first consider the undisposed of items as a group and announce my views as to the whole before taking them up separately.
The motion to quash is supported by affidavit. To that the Government has not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Consolidated Rendering Co. v. VermontSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Nelson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- Connecticut Importing Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1940
- Rosseau v. LangleyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Chase Nat. Bank v. Portland General Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- Cortés v. Corte de Distrito de San JuanSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.