Legal Opinion

Pennsylvania Railroad v. The Marie Leonhardt

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 1959No. 13 of 1959PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAN DUSEN, District Judge.

The position taken by libellant and cross-respondent in the above-mentioned motion that there is no authority to take the depositions of the above-named witnesses (as opposed to parties 1) for discovery on notice is correct. See Dowling v. Isthmian S. S. Corp., 3 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 758; cf. Brown v. Isthmian Steamship Corp., D.C.E.D.Pa.1948, 79 F.Supp. 701; Atlass v. Miner, 7 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 312, certiorari granted 361 U.S. 807, 80 S.Ct. 66, 4 L.Ed.2d 57. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized that the taking of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dowling v. Isthmian S.S. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  2. H. Leslie Atlass v. Hon. Julius H. Miner and Hon. Edwin A. Robson, Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
  3. Brown v. Isthmian Steamship Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cleveland v. PalmbyDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977
  2. Pace v. FurdonDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API