United Motion Theatre Company, a Copartnership, Richard Sloan, and Eugene Sloan v. Thomas H. Ealand, Doing Business as Ferndale Theatre

199 F.2d 371
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 1952
Docket11243
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 199 F.2d 371 (United Motion Theatre Company, a Copartnership, Richard Sloan, and Eugene Sloan v. Thomas H. Ealand, Doing Business as Ferndale Theatre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United Motion Theatre Company, a Copartnership, Richard Sloan, and Eugene Sloan v. Thomas H. Ealand, Doing Business as Ferndale Theatre, 199 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the hearing of this appeal counsel for appellee was not present and no brief having been filed on behalf of appellee, the appeal was heard upon the record and the brief and oral argument of attorney for the appellants;

And the Court being advised, it is now ordered that the order of June 22, 1950 herein appealed from be modified by the elimination therefrom of the following words in the second literary paragraph thereof:

“copies of all tax returns (including state employment and Federal Income, excess profits, with-holding, social security, payroll, excise and amusement or admission tax), and all related documents, memoranda and supporting data and all other documents, correspondence, papers, and memoranda kept recorded” and the words “all material” in the sentence starting with the words “Including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing.”

And as so modified, the order be and is affirmed. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451; Annotation 8 A.L.R.2d 1134; Garrett v. Fau, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 556; Welty v. Clute, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 429; O’Connell v. Olsen & Ugelstadt, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 142.

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

Related

In re Haynes
577 B.R. 711 (E.D. Tennessee, 2017)
Credit Life Insurance v. Uniworld Insurance
94 F.R.D. 113 (S.D. Ohio, 1982)
Maresca v. Marks
362 S.W.2d 299 (Texas Supreme Court, 1962)
Finance Commission of Boston v. McGrath
180 N.E.2d 808 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Kingsley v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
20 F.R.D. 156 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Brei v. Sharon Steel Corp.
8 Pa. D. & C.2d 483 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1956)
Noonan v. McGuire
11 Pa. D. & C.2d 543 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1956)
Baim & Blank, Inc. v. Bruno-New York, Inc.
17 F.R.D. 346 (S.D. New York, 1955)
Austin v. Aluminum Co. of America
15 F.R.D. 490 (E.D. Tennessee, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 F.2d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-motion-theatre-company-a-copartnership-richard-sloan-and-eugene-ca6-1952.