Legal Opinion
Lougee v. Grinnell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 20, 1990No. 13937PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGlass, J.
This case concerns the trial court’s denial of a motion to quash a deposition subpoena and its refusal to issue a protective order despite the claim of the petitioner, Virginius B. Lougee, that the information sought by the respondent, Jeannie B. Grinnell, was immaterial and unnecessarily duplicative. The court ruled that the statutory criteria for issuing a deposition subpoena had been satisfied and that Lougee had not shown good cause as to why he should not be deposed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The relevant procedural history of this case is as follows. Grinnell is the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. JowdySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- DiPalma v. WiesenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Horizons Titanium Corporation v. Norton CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1961
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2001
- Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.