Michael Doud Gill v. M. E. Miller

Fifth Circuit

Michael Doud Gill v. M. E. Miller

393 F.2d 22, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7663

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 18, 1968·No. 24876·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Concluding, as we do, that the trial court had a broad discretion in determining whether to grant or withhold immunity to a non-resident from being served with process while a subpoenaed witness at a hearing in the Southern District of Florida, Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52 S.Ct. 317, 76 L.Ed. 720 (1932); Page Co. v. MacDonald, 261 U.S. 446, 43 S.Ct. 416, 67 L.Ed. 737; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 34 S.Ct. 44, 61 L.Ed. 192, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

PER CURIAM:

Concluding, as we do, that the trial court had a broad discretion in determining whether to grant or withhold immunity to a non-resident from being served with process while a subpoenaed witness at a hearing in the Southern District of Florida, Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 52 S.Ct. 317, 76 L.Ed. 720 (1932); Page Co. v. MacDonald, 261 U.S. 446, 43 S.Ct. 416, 67 L.Ed. 737; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 34 S.Ct. 44, 61 L.Ed. 192, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Michael Doud Gill v. M. E. Miller, 393 F.2d 22, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7663 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

393 F.2d 22 (Michael Doud Gill v. M. E. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related