Smigiel v. Compagnie De Transports Oceaniques
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
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
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Kestner v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. JacksonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
- McNeice v. Oil Carriers Joint VentureDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Carey v. SchuldtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1957
- Olmert v. NelsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1973
- Mozeika v. Kaufman Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
- Powell v. Willow Grove Amusement ParkDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
- Felder v. Skibs A/S IdahoDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1964