Legal Opinion
Magida ex rel. Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Continental Can Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 8, 1951PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.
During the course of extended pre-trial examinations, defendant Continental Can Company, Inc. (hereafter Defendant) propounded certain questions to plaintiff and plaintiff’s lawyer which they characterized as privileged or repetitious or irrelevant and refused to answer. Defendant now moves to compel answers. Defendant has entered separate motions on each examination, but they raise identical problems.
Plaintiff, as a stockholder of Vulcan Detinning Company, brings this action under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title 15 U.S.C.A. § 78p…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Clark v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Smolowe v. Delendo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Young v. Higbee Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Gratz v. ClaughtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research & Management, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Pellegrino v. NesbitCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Brookings v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. ShieldsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- In re Penn Central Commercial Paper LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.