 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Hickman v. Taylor, No. 47,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 13, 1947, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondents, tug boat owners and underwriters, employed a law firm to defend them against potential suits resulting from the sinking of a tug in which their crew members drowned. Respondents' attorney interviewed and took written statements from the survivors with an eye toward litigation. Petitioner filed interrogatories directed to respondents, some of which requested copies of written statements taken from the crew members, detailed reports of oral statements, records, or other memoranda made concerning the tug's sinking. Respondents, through counsel, did not provide the requested materials and were found in contempt of court. The appellate court reversed, describing the materials as privileged work product under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. On further appeal, the Court found Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 was inapplicable because no depositions were involved with the interrogatories. However, petitioner's request, made without purported necessity or justification, for materials that were prepared by respondents' attorney in the course of legal representation fell outside of the arena of discovery and contravened public policy.
|
|||||
| Everson v. Bd. of Educ., No. 52,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 10, 1947, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Acting pursuant to a New Jersey statute, a township board of education (board) authorized reimbursement to parents of money that they expended for the bus transportation of their children to and from parochial schools. Appellant, in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a state court challenging the right of the board to reimburse parents of parochial school students. Taxpayer contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the state and the federal constitutions. The court held that the First Amendment did not prohibit New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it paid the fares of pupils attending public schools. New Jersey could not hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their religion. Consequently, it could not exclude individuals because of their faith from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. The state legislation did no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.
|
|||||
| Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, No. 93,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 10, 1947, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Certiorari was granted to address whether the district court had inherent power to dismiss a suit pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and, if so, whether that power was abused in this case. Respondent initially brought this case in federal district court based on diversity of citizenship. The district court, applying Erie, considered the law of New York as to forum non conveniens applied and that it required the case to be left to Virginia courts and dismissed the action. Appeal was taken. The appeals court disagreed as to the applicability of New York law, took a restrictive view of the application of the entire doctrine in federal courts, and reversed with one dissent. Petitioner appealed. The court studied the doctrine of forum non conveniens and its applicability, and determined it could never apply if there was absence of jurisdiction or mistake of venue. The court concluded the district court had not exceeded its powers or the bounds of its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and remitting it to the courts of his own community. The appeals court judgment was too restrictive.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
