Harry G. Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff) v. Thompson Mahogany Company (Third-Party Defendant)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• new trial justified where sequestered information “would have made a difference in ... counsel’s approach to the testimony of several witnesses”
• when information withheld in discovery, aggrieved party need not establish that outcome would have been different
• “simply, as amatter of contract, creates the obligation____”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).