green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.8 score
“it has always been thought that the license to practice law is limited, except as a matter of grace, to persons who had fulfilled the local requirements for practice.”
Treatment trajectory · 1950 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1950
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Wilson v. Simon
See also Baines v. City of Danville, 4th Cir. en bane, 337 F.2d 579 (1964) and Sexton v. Barry, 6th Cir., 233 F.2d 220 (1956); but Cf. Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3rd Cir., 184 F.2d 119 (1950).
cited
Cited "but see"
Studebaker Corporation v. Richard D. Gittlin
See, e. g., Sexton v. Barry, 233 F.2d 220 (6 Cir. 1956); Smith v. Village of Lansing, 241 F.2d 856 (7 Cir. 1957); but see Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3 Cir. 1950).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mruz v. Caring, Inc.
it has always been thought that the license to practice law is limited, except as a matter of grace, to persons who had fulfilled the local requirements for practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Filppula-McArthur v. Halloin
Techs., Inc., 181 F.R.D. 660 ; Nault's Auto Sales, Inc., v. American Honda Motor Co., 148 *137 F.R.D. 25 (D.N.H. 1993); Matter of Abrams, 465 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 1984). 13 In support of his argument against differential treatment Ball cites United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 626 (10th Cir. 1990); Koller 737 F.2d at 1054-55; and Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123 (3d Cir. 1950).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.
Like the Third Circuit, "we think it clear that limited to one case though the right of these attorneys to practice was, their standing with respect to this case was no different from that of any other regularly admitted local lawyer." Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123 (3d Cir.1950). 47 Particularly in the federal courts of the District of Columbia, we think it would be unwise to introduce into litigation an unwarranted disadvantage against parties with non-resident counsel by subjecting that counsel more readily to removal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Koller ex rel. Koller v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.
Like the Third Circuit, “we think it clear that limited to one case though the right of these attorneys to practice was, their standing with respect to this case was no different from that of any other regularly admitted local lawyer.” Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123 (3d Cir.1950). 47 Particularly in the federal courts of the District of Columbia, we think it would be unwise to introduce into litigation an unwarranted disadvantage against parties with non-resident counsel by subjecting that counsel more readily to removal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soriano v. Hosken
Recently, as regards state courts, the United States Supreme Court held that a lawyer admitted to the bar of one American state does not have a constitutional right “to appear pro hac vice” in the courts of another state, 15 but the Court avoided comment on the right of a defendant in a Federal prosecution to be represented by a nonmember of the bar of the court in which he is to be tried. 16 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that, in a Federal criminal case, the defendant’s right to counsel includes the right to a lawyer admitted to the bar of any state, and to deny an…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leis v. Flynt
(2×)
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119, 123 (CA3 1950); State v. Kavanaugh, 52 N. J. 7, 18, 243 A. 2d 225, 231 (1968); Smith v. Brock, 532 P. 2d 843, 850 (Okla. 1975). 36 Ohio App. 2d, at 190-201 , 304 N. E. 2d, at 401-406 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Kelly
A noteworthy example of decision by judicial fiat is the action of our court in Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950), when, in one sentence, we stated that § 1983 was a statutory exception to the Anti-Injunction Act: “And the provision in the Judicial Code forbidding the use of the injunction against state court action has a stated exception when a federal statute allows it, as it does here.” .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Kelly
Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 279 ( 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 ) (1977), last Term that the question presented here was open and would be decided "another day." That other day has come and we now overrule Monroe v. Pape, supra, insofar as it holds that local governments are wholly immune from suit under § 1983. 436 U.S. 663 , 98 S.Ct. at 2021 (footnote omitted citing 23 cases in which the Court had reached the merits without deciding whether the defendant could be held liable as a matter of law). 5 A noteworthy example of decision by judicial fiat is the action of our c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke
Compare, Gilliard v. Carson, 348 F.Supp. 757, 762-763 (N.D.Florida 1972) (Younger does not bar federal suit by indigents who are denied right to counsel); Cooper v. Huchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123-125 (3d Cir. 1950) (District court must retain jurisdiction of action by persons accused of capital crime to enjoin state judge from arbitrarily removing out-of-state lawyers, admitted as counsel for accused pro haec vie, pending use by an accused of relief available in state courts.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kenny
Compare Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. at 164 , 63 S.Ct. at 881 , with DeVita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172 , 1175-76 (3d Cir. 1970); Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950)
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kenny
Compare Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. at 164 , 63 S.Ct. at 881 , with DeVita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172 , 1175-76 (3d Cir. 1970); Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shaw v. Garrison
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d CCA 1950).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wheeler v. Adams Company
(2×)
E. g., Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950); Landry v. Daley, 288 F.Supp. 200, 223 (N.D.Ill.1968), appeal pending sub nom.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Appalachian Volunteers, Inc. v. Charles Clark, Edward Lee Blankenship v. Clarles Clark
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3rd Cir. 1950); Landry v. Daley, 288 F.Supp. 200, 221-225 (N.D.Ill.1968); Hulett v. Julian, 250 F.Supp. 208 (M.D.Ala.1966); Note, 21 Rutgers L.Rev. 92 (1966).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gardner v. Ceci
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3rd Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Amato v. Ruth
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3rd Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Landry v. Daley
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denis P. Kelly v. Butler County Board Of Commissioners
After several days the air became unbearably foul, yet defendants and/or their agents refused to open a window despite 100 degree temperature.' 2 The situation presented by this record is factually quite different from that before the courts in cases such as Ray v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 263 F.Supp. 630 (W.D.Pa.1967); Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124-125 (3rd Cir. 1950), where equitable injunctive relief was sought and 28 U.S.C. 1915 not involved; and Gaito v. Prasse, 312 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1963), where equitable injunctive relief was sought.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly v. Butler County Board of Commissioners
The situation presented by this record is factually quite different from that before the courts in cases such as Ray v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 263 F.Supp. 630 (W.D.Pa.1967); Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124-125 (3rd Cir. 1950), where equitable injunctive relief was sought and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 not involved; and Gaito v. Prasse, 312 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1963), where equitable injunctive relief was sought.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruce Baines v. City of Damville, Virginia, the Rev. Lendell W. Chase v. Chief Eugene McCain (Two Cases). Hildreth G. McGhee v. City of Danville, Lewis v. Bennett, the Rev. Lendell W. Chase v. Honorable A. M. Aiken, Judge, (Two Cases). Dolores J. Page and Margaret P. Dillard v. Chief Eugene McCain
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3 Cir. 1950). 112 The plaintiffs allege that the ordinances and the state court's injunctive order are unconstitutional on their face.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3 Cir. 1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Catoggio v. Grogan
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 1943, 319 U.S. 157 , 63 S.Ct. 877 , 87 L.Ed. 1324 , Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 119 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Kristopher Plante v. Daniel Stack v. Bella Restaurant
(2×)
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123 (3rd Cir.1950) (stating that the rights and duties of pro hac vice counsel, once admitted, are identical to those of a barred attorney).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cooper
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See In re Cooper, 821 F.2d at 843 (“due deliberation should be given before taking the extraordinary step of depriving Cooper of his counsel of choice.”) See also Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d at 123 (counsel admitted pro hac vice in a capital case cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously removed without depriving their clients of their constitutional rights).
cited
Cited "see"
Ascheim v. Quinlan
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3rd Cir. 1950); National Land & Investment Co. v. Spector, 428 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Entertainment Systems, Inc. v. Sedita
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1950); Sheridan v. Garrison, 415 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1040 , 90 S.Ct. 685 , 24 L.Ed.2d 685 (1970); and Honey v. Goodman, 432 F.2d 333 (6th Cir., 1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Chairman
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 123-125 (3rd Cir. 1950). 36 .
cited
Cited "see"
National Land & Investment Co. v. Specter
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3rd Cir. 1950). .
cited
Cited "see"
Grove Press, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
See, Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (C.A.3, 1950).
cited
Cited "see"
Henry A. Vigliano v. Honorable John G. Thevos, Hon. John Doe (Fictitious) and Hon. John F. Crane, Defendants-Respondents
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3rd Cir. 1950), and see Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, at pp. 484-485 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 (1965).
cited
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Mayberry v. Prasse
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rose Baron v. Maurice J. O'sullivan, Charles R. Lautenschlager, Gerard Guterl, Matthew G. Cummings, Rita Jacoby, Helen McMahon James E. Reynolds
There is no longer any doubt that where a person’s federally-protected civil or constitutional rights are abridged, “resort to a federal court may be had without first exhausting the judicial remedies of state courts.” Lane v. Wilson, 1939, 307 U.S. 268, 274 , 59 S.Ct. 872, 875 , 83 L.Ed. 1281 , emphasis supplied; see Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 119 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Dr. John I. Reddix v. Mrs. May Lucky, Registrar of Voters, Ouachita Parish
(2×)
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 119, 124 ; Brown v. Rutter, D.C.W.D.Ky.1956, 139 F.Supp. 679 , and authorities therein cited.” [148.
cited
Cited "see"
Reddix v. Lucky
See Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 119, 124 ; Brown v. Rutter, D.C.W.D.Ky., 1956, 139 F.Supp. 679 ; and authorities therein cited.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lisa
See Fuentes v. Reilly 590 F. 2d 509, 513 (3d Cir.1979) (concluding New Jersey would impose civil duty on truck driver to summon medical aid for injured motorcyclist who collided with truck; citing § 322 of Restatement); see also Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119, 123 (3d Cir.1950) ("rights may be acquired *165 by one from action by another, even though that action could not be legally demanded[,]" citing §§ 323-325 of Restatement).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ozel Conley v. Robert E. Dauer
(2×)
See also Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1950) (§ 1983 Civil Rights action falls within the “expressly authorized by Congress” exception to § 2283).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stewart v. Dameron
Compare, e. g., Baines v. City of Danville, 4th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 579 , cert. denied [Chase v. McCain], 1965, 381 U.S. 939 , 85 S.Ct. 1772 , 14 L.Ed.2d 702 and Goss v. Illinois, 7th Cir. 1963, 312 F.2d 257 (holding that 2283 is a bar) with Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3d Cir. 1950, 184 F.2d 119 and Machesky v. Bizzell, supra, [5 Cir., 414 F.2d 283 ] (holding that 2283 is not a bar).” “Despite the disagreement of the circuits on this issue, however, the decisions of this Circuit, taken alone, furnish a clearer guide.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Overstock Book Co. v. Barry
Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1950), and De Vita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir. 1970), with Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, sub nom.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Overstock Book Company, Inc. v. Barry
Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1950), and De Vita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir. 1970), with Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
J. L. Leflore v. James Robinson
(2×)
Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3 Cir. 1950, 184 F.2d 119 , 124 & n. 11; Landry v. Daley, N.D.Ill., 288 F.Supp. 200 , appeal dismissed, 1968, 393 U.S. 220 , 89 S.Ct. 455 , 21 L.Ed.2d 392 , with Baines v. City of Danville, 4 Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 579 , cert. denied, 1965, 381 U.S. 939 , 85 S.Ct. 1772 , 14 L.Ed.2d 702 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Washington v. Gadmire
Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 , 124 n. 11 (3 Cir. 1950) with Smith v. Village of Lansing, 241 F.2d 856, 859 (7 Cir. 1957).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jodbor Cinema, Ltd. v. Sedita
Compare Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (4th Cir.1964), cert, denied 381 U.S. 939 , 85 S.Ct. 1772 , 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965), and Goss v. Illinois, 312 F.2d 257 (7th Cir.1963) (specifically holding that Section 2283 bars enjoining pending state criminal proceedings), with Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119 (3d Cir.1950), and Sheridan v. Garrison, 415 F.2d 699 (5th Cir.1969) (holding that Section 2283 is no bar).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harvey F. Euge v. J. Earl Smith, M.D. City of St. Louis, Missouri Alphonso J. Cervantes Gary M. Gaertner Alvin J. McFarland
Compare Baines v. City of Danville, 337 F.2d 579 (4 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 939 , 85 S.Ct. 1772 , with Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F.2d 119, 124 (3 Cir. 1950), and see Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 484, n. 2 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965); and Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 , 613 n. 3, 88 S.Ct. 1335 , 20 L.Ed.2d 182 , 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walter Sheridan and Richard Townley v. Jim Garrison, Individually and as a District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans, Etc.
Compare, e. g., Baines v. City of Danville, 4th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 579 , cert. denied, 1965, 381 U.S. 939 , 85 S.Ct. 1772 , 14 L.Ed.2d 702 and Goss v. Illinois, 7th Cir. 1963, 312 F.2d 257 (holding that 2283 is a bar) with Cooper v. Hutchinson, 3d Cir. 1950, 184 F.2d 119 and Machesky v. Bizzell, supra (holding that 2283 is not a bar).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Palés De Méndez v. Aponte
(2×)
Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, supra, 3 Cir., 184 F.2d 119 , 124, with Smith v. Village of Lansing, supra, 7 Cir., 241 F.2d 856, 859 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Belships Co., Ltd, Skibs A/s,
v.
the Republic of France
v.
the Republic of France
21752_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Aug 30, 1950.
Charles S. Haight, New York City (Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor & Havens, and Pyne, Lynch & Smith, Anthony V. Lynch, Jr., and Joseph A. Schimski, all of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner., Fowler Hamilton, New York City (Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly & Cox, Jerome E. Hyman, and Harold P. Thomson, Jr., all of New York City, and George Ball, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondentlibellant.
Swan, Clark, Frank.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
While we have authority to issue one of the extraordinary writs here prayed for in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, we have been admonished that this should be done only when necessary in extraordinary cases, and not as a means of interlocutory appeal. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041; Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 163 F.2d 133. We fail to see how the taking of depositions of witnesses who have their own remedy if they are improperly subpoenaed and whose testimony has not yet been and may never he offered in evidence at the trial satisfies these standards. Accordingly we dismiss the petition.
Petition dismissed.