Legal Opinion
Isbrandsten v. Moller
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 18, 1947PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
There are two motions; one by plaintiffs and one by defendants.
The plaintiffs’ motion was brought on by an order to show cause and asks that the defendants be required to elect whether they will seek discovery by oral examination under Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, or by the propounding of interrogatories under Rule 33, F.R.C.P., and that the defendants be stayed from pursuing both methods concurrently.
The suit is against two corporations and certain individuals as such, and as a partnership. The complaint alleges that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Currier v. CurrierDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- Howard v. States Marine Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- McNally v. SimonsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Stevens v. Minder Const. Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Mutual Finance Corp. v. SobolDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Park & Tilford Distillers Corp. v. Distillers Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Zweifler v. Sleco Laces, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Edwin H. Morris & Co. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Punia v. Dry Dock Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Brause v. Travelers Fire InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.