State of Nevada v. Hazel R. O'leary, Secretary of Energy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 27(c) “was intended to preserve the right to employ a separate action to perpetuate testimony under former section 644 of Title 28 that is now repealed.”
• finding that the petitioner could not satisfy Rule 27 because it could not \set forth the substance of the testimony\
• finding that the petitioner could not satisfy Rule 27 because it could not \set forth the substance of the testimony\
• adopting the view that Rule 27 is merely designed to allow the preservation of known 20 testimony and is not a discovery device
• denying petition “seeking opinions, thoughts, views, and background information that is as yet completely unknown to the petitioner” because it failed to satisfy requirement that it state the expected “substance of the testimony” of the witness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).