Legal Opinion

Arney v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided September 27, 1971No. 3-71-Civ-168PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEVITT, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order requiring defendants to produce and permit plaintiff to inspect and copy thirty-two identified documents. The main action is one brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff is seeking judgment declaring he is entitled to certain benefits under defendant Hormel’s Exempt Employees’ Pension Plan notwithstanding a purported forfeiture of these benefits. Plaintiff was…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Republic Gear Company v. Borg-Warner CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
  3. Brown v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  4. Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
  5. Schmitt v. EmerySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings. Frank J. Duffy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
  2. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1979
  3. Wardleigh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Arnold v. City of ChattanoogaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
  5. In Re Grand Jury InvestigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API