Legal Opinion

In re Rainard

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided March 13, 1961No. Misc. No. 10Published

1Opinion of the Court

LEAHY, Senior District Judge.

1. Rainard, Bancroft’s employee, was questioned on deposition on the degree of control Bancroft had over the North Carolina litigation. Spunize’s counsel, at oral argument, stated, if answered, Rainard’s testimony could be used in the North Carolina suit as admissions against Duplan. But only, I think, is this so if it has first been established that Bancroft is in control of the North Carolina litigation.

The nature or degree of Bancroft’s control of the North Carolina litigation can be properly elicited from Duplan. If such information established privity between…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. G. & C. Merriam Co. v. SaalfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. HW Nelson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
  4. Marshall Metal Products, Inc. v. AghnidesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API