Bateman v. Standard Brands, Inc.

9 F.R.D. 555, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3276
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedOctober 18, 1949
DocketNo. 4575
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 F.R.D. 555 (Bateman v. Standard Brands, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bateman v. Standard Brands, Inc., 9 F.R.D. 555, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3276 (W.D. Mo. 1949).

Opinion

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The above motion is filed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (c) Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. It appears that the plaintiffs had made request of the defendant or his counsel to make certain admissions, as provided by Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the defendant declined to make such admissions but did not contest the issue. The admission requested was the extent of the loss sustained by plaintiffs in the destruction of its building by fire.

In the trial of the case the plaintiffs experienced no trouble in establishing the extent of their loss. One witness supplied the proof, and, as stated, the defendant did not contest that issue. The issues contested by the defendant were on other grounds and not on the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff. The time and expense of the plaintiff in making the proof was trivial. The last part of the paragraph cited provides that nothing should be allowed if “admissions sought were of no substantial importance.” The court so finds, and accordingly the application for an order to pay expenses will be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Boyle v. Town of Bristol, 96-5817 (2000)
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 2000
Joseph v. Fratar
197 F.R.D. 20 (D. Massachusetts, 2000)
Martin v. Mabus
734 F. Supp. 1216 (S.D. Mississippi, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F.R.D. 555, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bateman-v-standard-brands-inc-mowd-1949.