Goewey

Court of Claims

Goewey

210 Ct. Cl. 701, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 42, 1976 WL 7719

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 11, 1976

DocketNo. 456-73

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Ct. Cl. 701 (Goewey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goewey, 210 Ct. Cl. 701, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 42, 1976 WL 7719 (cc 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Pleading and ‘practice; attorneys; dual role of advocate and witness. — On June 11, 1976 the court entered the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, Nichols and Kunzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s request, filed April 9,1976, for review by the court, pursuant to Rule -53(c) (2) (i), of the trial judge’s order of March 17, 1976, •allowing plaintiff’s counsel to testify as a fact witness at the trial of this case without first disqualifying himself as plaintiff’s counsel in this litigation. Upon consideration thereof, together with the response in opposition thereto, without oral argument, it is concluded that the trial judge’s said order should 'be and it is affirmed. See Kenosha Auto Transport Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 888 (1975).

“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s said request for review, filed April 9,1976, be and the same is denied.”

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

Pleading and ‘practice; attorneys; dual role of advocate and witness. — On June 11, 1976 the court entered the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, Nichols and Kunzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s request, filed April 9,1976, for review by the court, pursuant to Rule -53(c) (2) (i), of the trial judge’s order of March 17, 1976, •allowing plaintiff’s counsel to testify as a fact witness at the trial of this case without first disqualifying himself as plaintiff’s counsel in this litigation. Upon consideration thereof, together with the response in opposition thereto, without oral argument, it is concluded that the trial judge’s said order should 'be and it is affirmed. See Kenosha Auto Transport Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 888 (1975).

“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s said request for review, filed April 9,1976, be and the same is denied.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Ct. Cl. 701, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 42, 1976 WL 7719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goewey-cc-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack