DISCOVERY-ORAL EXAMINATION-RIGHT TO, AND SCOPE OF, CROSS-EXAMINATION UNDER NEW YORK AND FEDERAL PROCEDURE

Isaacson, Daniel A.

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 48

First Page: 529

Year: 1950

Bluebook Citation: 48 MICH. L. REV. 529 (1950)

Author: Daniel A. Isaacson: all 3 publications


Abstract

At the close of plaintiff's pre-trial examination of. defendant corporation's employee on the question of failure to make delivery of merchandise pursuant to certain contracts, attorney for defendant began to cross-examine. Plaintiff objected to this procedure but permitted the cross-examination to continue, reserving his right to make application to the court to strike out the testimony. Held, testimony stricken. There should be no cross-examination in a pre-trial examination except for the limited purpose of clarifying an answer given on direct examination, and cross-examination to elicit additional information to that already adduced by the moving party or to give a version of the whole transaction from the standpoint of the party being examined is improper.

American Worcestershire Sauce Co. v. Armour & Co., 194 Misc. 745, 87 N.Y.S. (2d) 738 (1949).

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.