Richard A. Ash, on Behalf of Himself, and on Behalf of Bethelehem Steel Corporation v. Stewart S. Cort, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Nominal

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the denial of a Rule 27 motion when the plaintiff only provided “conclusory remarks” that failed to “show that evidence is likely to be lost while the appeal is pending”
• denying petition seeking “testimony from three named directors concerning all matters relevant to the subject matter involved in the [anticipated] action” because “Rule 27 is not a substitute for discovery” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• conclusory statement of proposed deponents’ advanced ages does not satisfy rule’s requirement to show need to perpetuate testimony
• “Rule 27 properly applies only in that special category of cases where it is necessary to prevent testimony from being lost.”
• age may be a relevant factor in showing that testimony must be perpetuated to avoid loss
• “Unlike the usual discovery motion, . . . motions to perpetuate testimony must be judged by different standards.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).