Porter v. Am. Distilling Co., 157 F.2d 1012 (2d Cir. 1946). · Go Syfert
Search
Porter v. Am. Distilling Co., 157 F.2d 1012 (2d Cir. 1946). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A. C. Allyn and Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc., Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., the Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke & Co., Helene Glenmore v. John I. Ahern (ca2, 1960-03-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A. C. Allyn and Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc., Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., the Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke & Co., Helene Glenmore v. John I. Ahern
2d Cir. · 1960 · confidence medium
There, in an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiffs sought an injunction in part on grounds relating to the patent laws and in part on grounds of unfair competition; the court held that an order striking the portions of the complaint relating to unfair competition was appealable under what is now § 1292(a) (1), although plaintiff's claims for relief on grounds under the patent laws remained open. 67 Our decisions in Studer v. Moore, 2 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 902 , Porter v. American Distilling Co., 2 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 1012 , Schwartz v. Eaton, supra, John & Sal's Automotive Service v. …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
D.C. Cir. · 1959 · confidence medium
Our decisions in Studer v. Moore, 2 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 902 , Porter v. American Distilling Co., 2 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 1012 , Schwartz v. Eaton, supra, John & Sal’s Automotive Service v. Jones Beach State Parkway Authority, 2 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 862 ; and Goldlawr v. Heiman, 2 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 729 , cited in opposition to appealability, do not demand a different conclusion.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PORTER, Price Administrator,
v.
AMERICAN DISTILLING CO., Inc., et al.
23, Docket 20249.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 4, 1946.
157 F.2d 1012
Augustus N. Hand, Chase, and Clark, Circuit Judges.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Albert M. Dreyer, Sol., George Moncharsh, Deputy Administrator for Enforcement, Milton Klein, Director, Litigation Division, David London, Chief, Appellate Branch, and Ernest Cook, Atty., Office of Price Administration, all of Washington, D. C., Kenneth Fisher, Regional Litigation Atty., and William Sardell, Chief, Opinion and Research Branch, Office of Price Administration, both of New York City, of plaintiff-appellant, Paul Porter.

John J. Burns and Reed, Truslow, Crane & deGive, all of New York City (John J. Burns and William G. Mulligan, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, American Distilling Co.

William B. Herlands, of New York City (William B. Herlands and Herbert S. Herlands, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees, Russell R. Brown, Henry C. Cole, Sam Rothberg, Thomas S. Brown, Stewart M. Seymour, and William H. Damour.

Edwin M. Slote, of New York City (Max E. Lynne, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Peter E. Siskind.

Garey, Desvernine & Kissam, of New York City (Jacob J. Rosenblum, Wm. Francis Corson, and Abraham Hornstein, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Stanhope Foster and Samuel L. Westerman individually, and Stanhope Foster, Samuel L. Westerman, and Sidney Kessler, as copartners doing business as Foster & Co.

Powers, Kaplan & Berger, of New York City (Samuel A. Berger, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Sidney Kessler, individually.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of Count 3 only affected certain of the many defendants who were sued jointly upon that count. The orders left Count 3 undisposed of as to various other defendants sued jointly and were not therefore final and hence not appealable. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443. Studer v. Moore, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 902; Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 465; cf. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 286, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478.

Appeals dismissed.