Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we can safely assume that no lawyer of competence is going to undertake this complex and costly case to recover 70 for mr. eisen.”
219 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 45 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dolgow v. Anderson (nyed, 1968-01-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Dolgow v. Anderson
E.D.N.Y · 1968 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we can safely assume that no lawyer of competence is going to undertake this complex and costly case to recover 70 for mr. eisen.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ariz. · 2009 · confidence medium
Under that doctrine, if an appellate court determined that the litigation would be summarily concluded because individual claims were so small that “no lawyer of competence [would] undertake [such a] complex and costly ease,” it treated the denial of class certification as a “final order.” Eisen, 370 F.2d at 120; see also Green v. Wolf Corp., 406 F.2d 291 , 295 n. 6 (2d Cir.1968) (finding appellate jurisdiction under § 1291 when absent class certification, “the litigation will very likely terminate without reaching the merits”). ¶ 10 The death knell doctrine did not automatically…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. New Milford Board of Education
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1980 · confidence medium
See Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc., 415 F.2d 1326 , 1333 n.9 (7th Cir.); see generally In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 528 F.2d 5, 10-11 (2d Cir.); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Loya v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Inc., 538 F.2d 279, 281-83 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 923 , 97 S.Ct. 321 , 50 L.Ed.2d 290 (1976); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger
N.D. Cal. · 1976 · confidence medium
See Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 896 (9th Cir. 1975); Falk v. Dempsey-Tegeler & Co., Inc., 472 F.2d 142, 143-144 (9th Cir. 1972); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Debra Ott v. Speedwriting Publishing Company and I.T.T. Educational Services Inc.
6th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
The court concluded that the case fell within that “small class” described in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., supra, and stated the requirement for appealability of this type order as follows: Where the effect of a district court’s order, if not reviewed, is the death knell of the action, review should be allowed. 370 F.2d at 121.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samuel Parkinson, as Custodian for Andrew Parkinson v. April Industries, Inc., and Alex M. Parker
2d Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Civ.P. 23 was in a case involving denial of class action status and took the form of the “death-knell” doctrine, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joslyn N. Williams and Robert L. Bostick v. L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Indus., Inc., 479 F.2d 1259 (7th Cir. 1973); Thill Securities Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, 469 F.2d 14, 17 (7th Cir. 1972) (denial of a motion to strike class action allegations); Gerstle v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 466 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1972). 8 . 370 F.2d 119 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967). 9 . 370 F.2d at 120. 10 . 406 F.2d 291 , 295 n. 6 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2131 , 23 L.Ed.2d 766 (1969). 11 . 443 F.2d 1301 (2nd Cir. 1971). 12 . 443 F.2d at 1306-07.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Feldman v. Lifton
S.D.N.Y. · 1974 · confidence medium
Ei sen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 LL.Ed.2d 598 (1967) (Eisen I).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,481 Hilda Herbst v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
2d Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
If the appeal is dismissed, not only will Eisen's claims never be adjudicated, but no appellate court will be given the chance to decide if this class action was proper under the newly amended Rule 23.' 370 F.2d at 120. 9 We followed this doctrine in Green v. Wolf Corp., 406 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, Troster, Singer & Co. v. Green, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2131 , 23 L.Ed.2d 766 (1969), where the individual claim was less than one thousand dollars. 406 F.2d at 295 n. 6.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neil T. Shayne v. Madison Square Garden Corporation (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
Where the effect of a district court’s order, if not reviewed, is the death knell of the action, review should be allowed. 370 F.2d at 120-121.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Free World Foreign Cars, Inc. v. Alfa Romeo, S.p.A.
S.D.N.Y. · 1972 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967). .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Kathleen Hackett, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. General Host Corporation (3×) also: Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
Where the effect of a district court’s order, if not reviewed, is the death knell of the action, review should be allowed.” 370 F.2d at 120-121. (citations omitted) The court in Eisen relied upon Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 , 69 S.Ct. 1221 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), as authority for its “death knell” rationale.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Weingartner v. Union Oil Co. of California (3×)
9th Cir. · 1970 · confidence medium
Where the effect of a district court’s order, if not reviewed, is the death knell of the action, review should be allowed.” 370 F.2d at 121. 4 In resisting Union Oil’s contention in the present case that the district court’s order denying a class action is not “final” within the meaning of section 1291, plaintiffs rely upon what they see as an analogous order held appealable in Co hen and upon the specific holding in Eisen, 5 However, in our opinion neither Cohen nor Eisen (read in the light of subsequent Second Circuit cases) brings the district court order in this case within the…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Weingartner v. Union Oil Company Of California (3×)
9th Cir. · 1970 · confidence medium
Where the effect of a district court's order, if not reviewed, is the death knell of the action, review should be allowed." 370 F.2d at 121. 4 12 In resisting Union Oil's contention in the present case that the district court's order denying a class action is not "final" within the meaning of section 1291, plaintiffs rely upon what they see as an analogous order held appealable in Cohen and upon the specific holding in Eisen. 5 However, in our opinion neither Cohen nor Eisen (read in the light of subsequent Second Circuit cases) brings the district court order in this case within the scope of …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ACS Industries, Inc. v. Keller Industries, Inc.
D. Conn. · 1969 · confidence medium
This case is wholly distinguishable from that before the Court of Appeals in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 (1967), since the effect of this Court’s order is not the “death knell of the action” if unreviewed, 370 F.2d at 121, nor does this order involve “a controlling question of law.” Instead, as is evident from a reading of the opinion, the Court denied defendant’s motion solely on the basis of the record before it, construing the facts shown by defendant as inadequate to justify dismissal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
unknown court · 1968 · confidence medium
“Dismissal of the class action in the present case, however, will irreparably harm Eisen and all others similarly situated, for, * * * it will for all practical purposes terminate - the litigation.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967).
cited Cited "see" United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 , 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967) (Eisen I ).
cited Cited "see" Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp.
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967) (Eisen I).
cited Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,657 Richard Hudson Share v. Air Properties G. Inc.
9th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967) (Eisen I).
cited Cited "see" Monarch Asphalt Sales Co., Inc., Applicants for Intervention and v. Wilshire Oil Company of Texas
10th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 2 Cir., 370 F.2d 119 , 121, cert. denied 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 ; Falk v. Dempsey-Tegeler & Co., Inc., 9 Cir., 472 F.2d 142, 143 .
cited Cited "see" Gant v. City of Lincoln
Neb. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See, 370 F. 2d 119 , 391 F. 2d 555 , and 479 F. 2d 1005 .
discussed Cited "see" Levine v. Empire Savings and Loan Association (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Colo. Ct. App. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra .
cited Cited "see" Ingenito v. Bermec Corporation
S.D.N.Y. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119, 120-121 (2d Cir. 1966); Green v. Wolf Corp., 406 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 2131 , 23 L.Ed.2d 766 (1969).
cited Cited "see" Purser v. Corpus Christi State National Bank
Ark. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F. 2d 119 (2nd Cir.1966); Reader v. Magma-Superior Copper Co., 108 Ariz. 186 , 494 P. 2d 708 (1972); Miles v. N. J.
discussed Cited "see" Buchholtz v. Swift & Co.
D. Minnesota · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 , 120 (2d Cir. 1966) (Eisen I), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 566, n. 16 (2d Cir. 1968) (Eisen II).
cited Cited "see" Reynolds v. Bakem Credit Union
Ark. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F. 2d 119 (2d Cir., 1966); Reader v. Magma-Superior Copper Co., 108 Ariz. 186 , 494 P. 2d 708 (1972); Miles v. N.J.
cited Cited "see" Robinson v. Penn Central Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 at 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert, denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967) ; Korn v. Franchard, 456 F.2d at 1214.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Freedman v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1976 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967) (denial of class certification appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ); with Walsh v. City of Detroit, 412 F.2d 226 (6th Cir. 1969) (class certification not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ); and Kohn v. Royall, Koegel & Wells, 496 F.2d 1094 (2d Cir. 1974) (class certification appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 only in certain narrow circumstances).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Master Key Antitrust Litigation
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 , 121 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche Corporation (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1974 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare id. with Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hartmann v. Scott
8th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra. 36 We reverse the order of the District Court dismissing defendants Hursh, Sheppard and Lightburn.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hartmann v. Scott
8th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra. We reverse the order of the District Court dismissing defendants Hursh, Sheppard and Lightburn.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Patricia Male v. Crossroads Associates
2d Cir. · 1972 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035 , 87 S.Ct. 1487 , 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967) (appellate review is not proper where *620 denial of class action status does not sound “death knell” to the action). 4 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co.
C.C.P.A. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), and Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1939).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Miller v. Mackey International, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1967) (Eisen I) with City of New York v. International Pipe and Ceramics Corp., 410 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. April 10, 1969).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Miller v. Mackey International, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1967) (Eisen I) with City of New York v. International Pipe and Ceramics Corp., 410 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. April 10, 1969) Fogel v. Wolfgang, 47 F.R.D. 213 , 214 fn. 4 (S.D.N.Y.1969). 5 Mackey's reliance on Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472 (E.D.N.Y.1968) is not persuasive.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Fogel v. Wolfgang
S.D.N.Y. · 1969 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1967) (Eisen I) with City of New York v. International Pipe and Ceramics Corp., 410 F.2d 295 , (2d Cir. April 10, 1969). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morton Eisen, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Purchasers and Sellers of 'Oddlots' on the New York Stock Exchange Similarly Situated
v.
Carlisle & Jacquelin and Decoppet & Doremus, Each Limited Partnerships Undernew York Partnership Law, Article 8, and New York Stock Exchange, Anunincorporated Association, Docket ,30934
119.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 19, 1966.
370 F.2d 119
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)

370 F.2d 119

Morton EISEN, on Behalf of himself and all other purchasers
and sellers of 'oddlots' on the New York Stock
Exchange similarly situated, Appellant,
v.
CARLISLE & JACQUELIN and DeCoppet & Doremus, each limited
partnerships underNew York Partnership law,
Article 8, and New York Stock Exchange,
anunincorporated association, Appellees.
Docket ,30934.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 12, 1966.
Decided Dec. 19, 1966.

Laventhall & Zicklin, New York City (Pomerantz, Levy, Haudek & Block, New York City, of counsel), fof appellant.

Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, New York City, for appellee Carlisle & Jacquelin.

Kelley, Drye, Newhall, Maginnes & Warren, New York City, for appellee DeCoppet & Doremus.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York City, for appellee New York Stock Exchange.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

[*~119]1

The sole question presented by this motion is whether appellant may take an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing his class action, but permitting him to litigate his individual claims.

2

Morton Eisen brought an action in the district court alleging that two major 'odd-lot' dealers on the New York Stock Exchange-- Carlisle & Jacquelin and DeCoppet & Doremus-- had conspired and combined to monopolize odd-lot trading and had charged excessive fees, in violation of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. 1, 2. Specifically, he challenged the so-called 'odd-lot differentials' charged by the appellees and other odd-lot dealers for transactions involving other than 100 share lots of securities. The complaint also charged the New York Stock Exchange with having breached its duties, allegedly prescribed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, concerning suspension of odd-lot trading. 15 U.S.C. 78f(b), 78f(d), 78s(a).

3

Eisen sued both for himself and on behalf of all odd-lot purchasers and sellers on the Exchange. Appellees moved to dismiss the class action, alleging that it was not maintainable under amended Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Tyler granted the motion and dismissed the class action, but did not dismiss Eisen's individual claims or pass on their merits.

4

It is too clear for discussion that all orders are not appealable. 28 U.S.C. 1291 provides that the courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from all 'final' decisions of the district courts, while 28 U.S.C. 1292 permits appeals from a narrowly limited class of interlocutory orders. But as the Supreme Court has commented, '(A) decision 'final' within the meaning of 1291 does not necessarily mean the last order possible to be made in a case.' Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 152, 85 S.Ct. 308, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). The question presented to us, therefore, is whether Judge Tyler's order dismissing the class action falls within 'that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.' Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

5

In making this determination, Justice Black's language in the Gillespie case is instructive:

6

It is impossible to devise a formula to resolve all marginal cases coming within what might well be called the 'twilight zone' of finality. Because of this difficulty this Court has held that the requirement of finality be given a 'practical rather than a technical construction.' * * * In deciding the question of finality the most important competing considerations are 'the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other.' 379 U.S. at 152-153, 85 S.Ct. at 311.

[*119]7

In the present case, these considerations, rather than being 'competitive,' lead to a single conclusion-- that the order dismissing this class action is appealable. The alternatives are to appeal now or to end the lawsuit for all practical purposes. Judge Tyler's order 'if unreviewed, will put an end to the action'. Chabot v. National Securities and Research Corp.,290 F.2d 657, 659 (2d Cir. 1961). We can safely assume that no lawyer of competence is going to undertake this complex and costly case to recover $70 for Mr. Eisen. See Escott v. Barchris Constr. Corp., 340 F.2d 731, 733 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Drexel & Co. v. Hall, 382 U.S. 816, 86 S.Ct. 37, 15 L.Ed.2d 63 (1965). If the appeal is dismissed, not only will Eisen's claims never be adjudicated, but no appellate court will be given the chance to decide if this class action was proper under the newly amended Rule 23.

8

There are, therefore, most compelling reasons to deny this motion to dismiss the appeal; and permitting Eisen to proceed in no way conflicts with any precedents of this Court. Appellees rely on Oppenheimer v. F. J. Young & Co., 144 F.2d 387 (2d Cir. 1944), but that decision was reached before the Supreme Court spoke in Cohen, supra. While it is true that in Lipsett v. United States, 359 F.2d 956 (2d Cir. 1966), we did not permit an appeal from the dismissal of a class action, we reached that conclusion because the facts did not come within the framework of the Cohen doctrine; the plaintiffs lacked standing, and dismissal of the class action allegations, we said, merely 'prettified' the pleadings since the action could still continue.

9

Dismissal of the class action in the present case, however, will irreparably harm Eisen and all others similarly situated, for, as we have already noted, it will for all practical purposes terminate the litigation. Where the effect of a district court's order, if not reviewed, is the death knell of the action, review should be allowed. See Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950); Chabot v. National Securities and Research Corp., supra.

[*~120]10

Motion denied.