Legal Opinion
Folley Amusement Holding Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 19, 1940PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HULBERT, District Judge.
Defendants, Randforce Amusement Corporation, Samuel Rinzler and Louis Frisch move “pursuant to Rule 30” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, (1) that the depositions of Rinzler and Frisch shall not be taken or that certain matters attempted to be elicited from the witness Rinzler shall not be inquired into, or that the scope and manner of the taking of the depositions of the witnesses and the scope and manner of the examination before trial of the moving defendants be limited; and (2) that the subpoena duces tecum, issued…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Folly Amusement Holding Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States ex rel. Edelstein v. Brussell Sewing Mach. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Federal Communications Commission, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Taft B. Schreiber and McA Inc., Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Federal Communications Commission, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Taft B. Schreiber and McA Inc., Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- National Labor Relations Board v. Baldwin Locomotive WorksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- National Labor Relations Board v. Baldwin Locomotive WorksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942