Legal Opinion
Thompson v. Hoitsma
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 21, 1956No. Civ. A. No. 724-54PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTSHORNE, District Judge.
Olson was Thompson’s employer, and, for an accident to Thompson in the course of this employment, Olson paid a compensation award. Since Hoitsma furnished some of the materials involved in the accident, Thompson, after obtaining the above award, sued Hoitsma, who in turn sued Olson.
Defendant Hoitsma, in addition to other discovery obtained by consent during oral argument, has applied under Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A., against his third party defendant Olson, for the “inspection and copying” of alleged statements by Olson’s officers and employees, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Richard Hauger v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1954
- United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons CompanyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1956
3Cited by9 opinions
- Freeman v. SeligsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Transmirra Products Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1973
- Burke v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1963
- Schroer v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.