Legal Opinion
Mutual Finance Corp. v. Sobol
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 25, 1946PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
There are several questions for discussion. Insofar as I have discovered, there is no material dispute about the facts. I shall take up the matters in order. All the events in which we are interested occurred in 1946.
I. In the present state of the record Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, governs the issue now presented in regard to which party is entitled to priority of examination. It is there provided as follows: “Without * * * leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, * * * may be taken…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kenealy v. Texas Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Bough v. LeeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Grauer v. Schenley Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Ginsberg v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Hillside Amusement Co. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Zweifler v. Sleco Laces, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Isbrandsten v. MollerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947
- Punia v. Dry Dock Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Hare v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1949
- Modigliani Glass Fibers, Inc. v. Glasfloss Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1948