Legal Opinion
J. M. Cleminshaw Co. v. City of Norwich
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided December 1, 1981No. Civ. A. No. H76-321PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*343RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ORDER
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
This case illustrates the need for federal trial courts diligently to apply established techniques of case management. Defendant has failed to answer plaintiffs discovery requests and has disobeyed the discovery orders of the court. As a result, what began as a relatively uncomplicated contract action, claiming damages of less than $70,000, has now been pending for more than five years. The parties, moreover, have still not filed a proposed final pre-trial order, as contemplated by the…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Herbert v. LandoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- New York v. Solvent Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 2002
- Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Satcorp International Group and Sino American Trading Corp. v. China National Silk Import & Export Corporation, and Hugh H. Mo, Esq.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Bi-Rite Package, Inc. v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial District of Fremont CountyWyoming Supreme Court · 1987
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.