Lumpkin v. Bi-Lo, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to Rule 30(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — the federal analogues to Wis. Stat. §§ 906.15 and 804.05(4) respectively
• “While a district judge may exercise wide discretion in allowing more than one corporate representative to be present, the court finds that the instant case is not one that would warrant the attendance of both Mr. Carithers and Mr. Barnes at Plaintiff’s deposition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. District Court of the First Judicial District
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1994-07-18· cited 14×
• Adams v. Shell Oil Co.
  E.D. Louisiana· 1991-05-16· cited 4×
• Smith v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-06-21· cited 3×
• Lee v. Denver Sheriff's Department
  D. Colorado· 1998-09-17· cited 3×
• Pryor Automotive Supply Inc. v. Estate of Edwards
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1991-05-28· cited 2×
• Marks v. Powell (In Re Marks)
  E.D. Arkansas· 1991-12-17· cited 1×
• Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States
  Court of Claims· 1988-04-14· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Naismith v. Professional Golfers Ass'n
  N.D. Georgia· 1979-10-11· cited 28×
• BCI Communication Systems, Inc. v. Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc.
  N.D. Alabama· 1986-09-16· cited 16×
• Skidmore v. Northwest Engineering Co.
  S.D. Florida· 1981-03-24· cited 14×
• Williams v. Electronic Control Systems, Inc.
  E.D. Tennessee· 1975-10-16· cited 9×