Legal Opinion

Sisco v. Chas. Kurz & Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 3, 1950No. 95 of 1950PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WELSH, District Judge.

The instant motion to produce under the provisions of Admiralty Rule 32, 28 U.S. C.A., was filed by libellant. The respondent has interposed several objections to the motion of libellant. These are discussed and disposed of below.

1. On the ground that libellant has failed to show “good cause” respondent objects to the production of the letter .adr dressed to respondent dated December 2, 1949, signed by the Captain, the statement of Chief Mate dated December 2, 1949, and the. statement signed by the libellant in the possession of the respondent.

*527It is clear that a showing…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  2. Hudalla v. Chicago, M., S. P. & P. R.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1950
  3. Raudenbush v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Government Employees Insurance v. Schroeder, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1978

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

Powered by the Exa API