Legal Opinion
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 28, 1938PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
The inquiry of chief importance, as I feel, is as to the relationship of the parties to each other in the two cases. The party defendant in both was identical. The pafty complainant in the two was *49not identical. If the testimony of the deceased witness in the first case, the Federal Trade Commission proceeding, be admissible in the suit in trial, it must rest, as I believe both parties concede, on the existence of a relationship of privity between the two parties complainant; that is to say, between the Federal Trade Commission and the United States. Such privity must…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Daniel Boardman and Others, in Error v. The Lessees of Reed and Ford, M'call and Others, in ErrorSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Stacy v. Thrasher Ex Rel. SellersSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. GumbyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900
- Young v. Travelers' Ins.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hertz v. GrahamDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Insul-Wool Insulation Corp. v. Home Insulation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
- Mid-City Bank & Trust Co. v. Reading Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1944
- Wolf v. United Air Lines, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
- Charles H. Demarest, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.