Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases, 1924–2009 · leading case:
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).
· cites it 2× “If a party is in the business of making motion pictures in California and is going about his normal business there when the trial occurs, it is quite clear that the exception limiting use of his deposition does not apply.”
Anglo California Nat. Bank of San Francisco v. Lazard, 106 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1939).
· cites it 2× “The evidence was properly excluded. Appellants contend that the court below erred in reference to the taking of and the admission into evidence of the depositions of appellees David David-Weill, and Christian Lazard.”
Vincennes Steel Corp. v. Miller, 94 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1938).
“28 U.S.C.A. § 639 et seq. In criminal cases, process for witnesses may run into any other district.”
M. Witmark & Sons v. Calloway, 22 F.2d 412 (E.D. Tenn. 1927).
“(28 USCA § 639 [Comp. St. § 1472]). There was never any formal exception filed to this deposition of Sadie Einstein, and for the reasons indicated thé deposition was clearly admissible.”
Dowling v. Jones, 67 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1933).
“All the new evidence was taken upon deposition de bene esse at places remote from New York, and long before the trial.”
Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 72 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1934).
“Notwithstanding these decisions, it seems to us that where the parties have made a valid agreement, the performance of which calls for the signing of a document, be it contract, deed, affidavit, or other instrument, courts of equity may compel the performance of the agreement,…”
Nieman v. Plough Chem. Co., 22 F.2d 73 (6th Cir. 1927).
“7 The regularity of the taking and return of Lewin’s deposition is important; we doubt whether without it the record carries the Harper use back far enough to anticipate that of appellant.”
Mulligan v. United States, 87 F. Supp. 79 (S.D.N.Y. 1949).
“A third explanation is that the revisers did not intend to authorize oral discovery proceedings and that the reference in Rule 32C to oral examinations relates to the kind of oral examination which is authorized in admiralty, namely, de bene esse depositions under 28 U.S.C.A. §…”
United States v. Hofmann, 24 F. Supp. 847 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).
“Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 639 . 2. Deposition under dedimus potestatem and in perpetuam.”
United States v. 364.82 Acres of Land, 38 F.R.D. 411 (N.D. Cal. 1965).
“Discovery of Expert Opinion Prior to the development of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery-in the federal system was governed by Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 639 et seq. (Committee Note, Note to subdivision (a) of' Rule 26; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice-1012).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.