Legal Opinion

Huber Baking Co. v. Frank C. Sparks Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided April 24, 1951PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLayton, J.

This is a reargument of one phase of the case of Huber Baking Company v. Sparks Company, 6 Terry 525, 76 A. 2d 124. Counsel for Huber no longer challenges the conclusion there reached that, in a proper case, an examiner may move for the exclusion of witnesses from the deposition room under Rule 30 (b). However, he now contends that, in the cited opinion, I failed to consider whether of not the motion for the protective order was seasonably made. Concededly, I did not touch directly on this phase of the matter and, because it was raised on the briefs and argued to me, .counsel is entitled to a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1912
  2. Mastellone v. Argo Oil Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1950
  3. Huber Baking Co. v. Frank C. Sparks Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1950

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. BCI Communication Systems, Inc. v. Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1986
  2. Dunlap v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Layton v. LeeSuperior Court of Delaware · 1963
  4. Distefano v. LambornSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951
  5. Mooney v. The Boeing CompanySuperior Court of Delaware · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API