John Marshall Harlan II

Name: Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court
Author: John Marshall Harlan II

Summary

“Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John Marshall Harlan II. It explores elements such as deposition, the General Admiralty Rules and discovery.

Quotes from Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court (John Marshall Harlan II)

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ We deal here only with the procedure before us, and our decision is based on its particular nature and history. Discovery by deposition is at once more weighty and more complex a matter than either of the examples just discussed or others that might come to mind. Its introduction into federal procedure was one of the major achievements of the Civil Rules, and has been described by this Court as 'one of the most significant innovations' of the rules. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ Moreover, the choice of procedures adopted to govern various specific problems arising under the system was in some instances hardly less significant than the initial decision to have such a system. It should be obvious that we are not here dealing either with a bare choice between an affirmative or a negative answer to a narrow question, or even less with the necessary choice of a rule to deal with a problem which must have an answer, but need not have any particular one. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ Unlike many state practice statutes, this Court's rules of admiralty practice for the District Courts are not comprehensive codes regulating every detail of practice, and we would be slow to hold that the interstices may not be the subject of appropriate local regulation. For example, rules fixing the time for doing certain acts are of the essence of orderly procedure. So long as the time set be not unreasonable, it is less important what the limit be than that there be a rule whereby some timetable may be known to the profession. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ Counsel for the claimants, representing the petitioners here, undertake to support the discovery-deposition order on the grounds that: (1) a court of admiralty has inherent power, not dependent on any statute or rule, to order the taking of depositions for the purpose of discovery; (2) Rule 32C of this Court's General Admiralty Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., impliedly empowers a district judge to order the taking of such depositions; (3) Rule 32 of the District Court's Admiralty Rules is a valid exercise of its power to regulate local practice, conferred by Rule 44 of the General Admiralty Rules. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ We consider each contention in turn.
The reliance on an asserted inherent power is based almost exclusively on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Dowling v. Isthmian S.S.C.orp., 184 F.2d 758. In an exhaustive discussion, Judge Fee, for that court, expressed the view that the traditionally flexible and adaptable admiralty practice empowers a court to order a party to submit to pretrial oral examination. Whether or not the decision was intended to embrace examinations solely for discovery purposes is not entirely clear. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ Rather, the matter is one which, though concededly 'procedural,' may be of as great importance to litigants as many a 'substantive' doctrine, and which arises in a field of federal jurisdiction where nationwide uniformity has traditionally always been highly esteemed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Marshall Harlan II, Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court

“ Application of A. Pellegrino & Son, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 209; cf. Republic of France v. Belships Co., Ltd., D.C., 91 F.Supp. 912; Prudential Steamship Corp. v. Curtis Bay Towing Co., D.C.Md., 20 F.R.D. 356. Rule 44, entitled 'Right of trial courts to make rules of practice,' provides:
'In suits in admiralty in all cases not provided for by these rules or by statute, the District Courts are to regulate their practice in such a manner as they deem most expedient for the due administration of justice, provided the same are not inconsistent with these rules.' (Emphasis added.) ”

John Marshall Harlan II

Summary

Quotes from Miner v. Atlass — Opinion of the Court (John Marshall Harlan II)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature