Citation network
Miner Vs. Atlass
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1960
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 641 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Miner v. AtlassSearch
-
U.S. 641 (1960) Miner v. AtlassSearch
-
inherent power is based almost exclusively on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Dowling v. IsthmianSearch
-
intended to embrace examinations solely for discovery purposes is not entirely clear. Compare Standard Steamship Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 126 F.Supp. 583, with Darling's Estate v. AtlanticSearch
-
Brown v. IsthmianSearch
-
S.S. Corp., 79 F.Supp. 701, 702 (D.C.E.D.Pa.). In accord with the Brown decision are Bunge Corp. v. TheSearch
-
Galperin v. UnitedSearch
-
we are in agreement with the explanation offered by Judge Rifkind in Mulligan v. UnitedSearch
-
such rule was a valid exercise of power conferred on the District Court by Rule 44 of the General Rules. See Ludena v. TheSearch
-
Republic of France v. BelshipsSearch
-
Prudential Steamship Corp. v. CurtisSearch
-
of taking depositions for discovery purposes. Cf. Galveston Dry Dock & Const. Co. v. StandardSearch
-
motions for rehearing may be filed should not bar a District Court from fixing such a time limit. See Papanikolaou v. AtlanticSearch
-
should be held to prevent a District Court from supplying an answer by local rule. See Galveston Dry Dock & Const. Co. v. StandardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the rules. Hickman v. TaylorSearch
-
statutes, cannot deal with the matter of the taking and use of depositions as an integrated whole. See Mercado v. UnitedSearch
-
practice of using depositions for discovery in admiralty that codification was thought unnecessary. See Mulligan v. UnitedSearch
-
Judge Rifkind's rejection of the Brown decision has been followed by several district judges. See Kelleher v. UnitedSearch
-
Standard Steamship Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Gulf Oil Corp. v. AlcoaSearch
-
been promulgated with reference to the trial, and not the discovery, stage of the lawsuit. See Republic of France v. BelshipsSearch
-
discovery deposition not meeting the conditions of the statute may not be admitted into evidence at the trial, Mercado v. UnitedSearch
-
is not sought to be taken for use at trial, we see no reason to regard the statute as a bar. See Republic of France v. BelshipsSearch
-
Northern District of California, Admiralty Rule 13, West's Ann.Code. See also Darling's Estate v. AtlanticSearch
-
in law. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the rule, and it should be taken at its face value. See Papanikolaou v. AtlanticSearch
-
Galveston Dry Dock & Construction Co. v. StandardSearch
-
Cf. British Transport Commission v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 138 . Civil Rule 83 is quite similar in concept, and appears to be given a comparable interpretation. Russell v. CunninghamSearch
-
Cf. United States v. HvassSearch
-
Clearly a rule providing for discovery by way of deposition practice is one regulating procedure. See Sibbach v. WilsonSearch
-
rule cannot change the provisions of the de bene esse act regulating admissibility into evidence. So Mercado v. UnitedSearch
-
Darling's Estate v. AtlanticSearch
-
judge that a local rule on depositions be proposed by a committee for promulgation by the court. Prudential S.S. Corp. v. CurtisSearch
-
D.C.E.D.Pa.), or by a decision indicating that the practice was available without rule of court, see Dowling v. IsthmianSearch
-
Hanks Dental Ass'n v. InternationalSearch
-
Mercado v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Dowling v. IsthmianSearch
-
See Hanks Dental Ass'n v. InternationalSearch
-
matters. There would seem no reason why a limitation on the former should affect the latter. See Republic of France v. BelshipsSearch
-
United States v. IsthmianSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Miner v. AtlassSearch
-
Dowling v. IsthmianSearch
-
Compare Standard Steamship Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Bunge Corp. v. TheSearch
-
Mulligan v. UnitedSearch
-
of the General Rules. See Ludena v. TheSearch
-
Republic of France v. BelshipsSearch
-
Cf. Galveston Dry Dock & Const. Co. v. StandardSearch
-
See Papanikolaou v. AtlanticSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial