Legal Opinion

Caruso v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided July 3, 1961No. 60-A-322PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARTELS, District Judge.

Cross-motions pursuant to Rule 32 of the Admiralty Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., for the production and inspection of certain witness statements in possession of each party.

In this action predicated upon an accident upon the respondent’s vessel while berthed in Brooklyn, the libellant has moved for an order compelling respondent Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. to produce “Any and all statements obtained by respondent’s Claims Department or any other department or investigative agency with respect to the accident to the libellant on May 24, 1958.” Not only does the libellant’s moving…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Brown v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  3. Brookshire v. Pennsylvania R. Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1953
  4. Buining v. The S.S. TransporterDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1959

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974
  2. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1962
  3. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1962
  4. In re Bloomfield Steamship Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API