I. LEON CO., INC.,

v.

REINER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (74 total)

• Mabrey Hall King v. Diamond F. Califano, 183 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
  …all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.’ ” In one of the leading cases construing Federal Rule 26(d) (4), Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Wray Equipment Corp., 286 F. 2d 491 (1961) (cert. den. 366 U.S. 929, 81 S.Ct. 1650, 6 L.Ed.2d 388), the United-States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said: “The rule provides a method for averting, so far as possible, any misim-pressions from selective use of deposition testimony. ' The opposing party is. en…
• California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1970)
  …has actually given “inconsistent” testimony concerning the substance of the event described in the prior statement. Id., at 119, 121; see e. g., Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Wray Equipment Corp., 286 F. 2d 491, 493 (C. A. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U. S. 929 (1961); 3 Wigmore § 1043. This issue is not insubstantial. Conviction here rests almost entirely on the evidence in Porter’s two prior statements which were themselves inconsistent in some respects. See, e. g., Brief for Respondent 3 and n. 2, 49-5…
• Parks v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, 314 F.2d 886 (4th Cir. 1963)
  …ction 101(a) (4) is applicable as a limitation on jurisdiction in suits brought in the federal courts under section 102 for violations of Title I of the LMRDA. Detroy v. American Guild of Variety Artists, 286 F. 2d 75, 77-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 929, 81 S.Ct. 1650, 6 L.Ed.2d 388 (1961). Not only does section 101(a) (4) govern the exhaustion question in the Parks action, but since it provides an authoritative expression of congressional labor policy, it is, insofar as it may modify the common la…

  ← 1 / 5 →