Legal Opinion
Bierman v. Marcus
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 23, 1954No. Civ. A. 1026-50PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MODARELLI, District Judge.
On January 19, 1954, the defendant Milmar Estate, Inc., by its attorney, Mr. Brigadier, took the deposition of Mr. Schwartz, one time attorney for the defendant, Mr. Marcus. Schwartz refused to answer many questions on the ground that the subject matter of the inquiry was privileged by the attorney-client relationship.
A motion to compel Schwartz to answer was heard on January 25, 1954, and at that time the court ruled that Schwartz should testify as to any matter not privileged and as to any privileged matter which his client Marcus had already testified about.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Steiner v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1943
- People's Bank of Buffalo v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1902
- State v. LoponioSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
- Willard C. Beach Air Brush Co. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1953
- Palatini v. SarianNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
- Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1976
- Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- Wei v. BodnerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
- Wender v. United Services Automobile Ass'nDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.