Sentence examples for in answer to interrogatories from inspiring English sources

In 1947, in answer to interrogatories by the German Adm. Karl Dönitz, on trial for war crimes, Nimitz gave his justification for the unrestricted nature of U.S. submarine warfare in the Pacific during World War II.

See also R. 58 (Union's answers to interrogatories).

A further 143 witnesses gave evidence for the Defence by means of written answers to interrogatories.

Testimony means any written or oral statement by a witness, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, and statements at a hearing or trial.

d. "On several occasions, Gateway representatives have asked [Microsoft] to remove the icon for IE from the desktop, but [Microsoft] representatives have refused each request, saying that the browser cannot be removed or sold separately....". (Gateway 2000 Inc. 9/19/97 Answers to Interrogatories, p. 8)...

Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

A motion for summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law". Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

In answer to his….

In their response to interrogatories in the District Court respondents conceded that they did "not accuse Ernst & Ernst of deliberate, intentional fraud," merely with "inexcusable negligence". App.

The defendant claims that the jury could not have reasonably and logically rendered a verdict under our law when in their answers to the interrogatories they expressly found that the defendant did not throw the stone with intent to strike either the minor plaintiff or any other person and did not throw the stone [168 Conn .333] either negligently or wantonly and recklessly.