Legal Opinion

Smigiel v. Compagnie De Transports Oceaniques

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 1, 1960No. 363 of 1958, AdmiraltyPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD, District Judge.

The impleaded respondent has served libellant with interrogatories. Libellant has excepted thereto on the ground that impleaded respondent is not an “adverse party” with respect to libellant, and that therefore, impleaded respondent may not serve the interrogatories under Admiralty Rule 31, 28 U.S.C.A. This question has recently been *519argued in this Court,1 and it has been held that unless a third-party defendant clearly challenges plaintiff’s position, either by pleadings or other evidence in the record, the third-party defendant will not be considered “adverse” to the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  3. Kestner v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
  4. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. JacksonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. McNeice v. Oil Carriers Joint VentureDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Carey v. SchuldtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1957
  2. Olmert v. NelsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1973
  3. Mozeika v. Kaufman Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. Powell v. Willow Grove Amusement ParkDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  5. Felder v. Skibs A/S IdahoDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API