TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lindeman v. Textron, Inc.

Victor D. LINDEMAN, Francis Bonner, Katherine Robinson Brainard as of the Estate of Millar Brainard, and Lincoln Epworth v. TEXTRON, Incorporated

Lindeman v. Textron, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 21, 1955
Judges
Palmier
Citations
136 F. Supp. 1571955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2385

Opinion of the Court — Palmier

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PALMIER!, District Judge.

Defendant appeals from rulings of the Clerk of the Court disallowing items of its bill of costs.

The Clerk disallowed attorneys’ docket fees of $2.50 each for four depositions on the theory that they were not admitted in evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 1923 (a). Excerpts from all of these depositions 'were admitted into evidence at the trial. That is sufficient to meet the requirement in section 1923(a) that the deposition be admitted in evidence. See Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 2 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 571 . These costs are therefore allowed.

The Clerk also disallowed the expense incurred by defendant in obtaining a copy of a deposition taken by plaintiffs. Defendant relies on Cooke v. Universal Pictures Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 135 F.Supp. 480 , Palmieri, J. In the Cooke case the expense of obtaining copies of depositions taken by the losing party was allowed because the depositions were not filed with the Court until the day of the trial, and therefore defendant could not use them to prepare his ease unless he bought copies for himself. But this case differs from the Cooke case. In this case defendant waived the filing of the. deposition taken by the plaintiffs. Having done so, it cannot now complain that since the deposition was not on file, it could not make use of it. The Clerk’s ruling on this item is sustained.

The Clerk should proceed to retax costs in ^accordance with this memorandum.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11964: 22020: 119592026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Standard Oil Co. of California339 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1964)
  2. Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.24 F.R.D. 305 (D. Del. 1959)
  3. Firemen's Fund Insurance Company v. Standard Oil Company of California, the City of Los Angeles v339 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1964)
  4. Walker v. SchultNo. 9:11-cv-00287 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2020)

Most recent

  1. Walker v. SchultNo. 9:11-cv-00287 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2020)
  2. Firemen's Fund Insurance Company v. Standard Oil Company of California, the City of Los Angeles v339 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1964)
  3. Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Standard Oil Co. of California339 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1964)
  4. Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.24 F.R.D. 305 (D. Del. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 139 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1943) 34
Cooke v. Universal Pictures Co., 135 F. Supp. 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list