green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.2 score
“exemplary damages and attorneys' fees are not money claims triable by jury, although they are awarded in a legal action.”
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Treadaway v. Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences
But see, e.g., Locklin v. Switzer Brothers, Inc., 335 F.2d 331 , 334-35 & n. 9 (7th Cir.1964) (noting the decision in Lapin, but entertaining an independent action seeking relief from a judgment of a California district court), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 652 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965) 3 The "artful pleading" doctrine has been developed in the context of removal jurisdiction to prevent plaintiffs from foreclosing defendants' rightful access to federal fora by framing their complaints in an artificial and deceptive manner.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Treadaway v. Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences
But see, e.g., Locklin v. Switzer Brothers, Inc., 335 F.2d 331 , 334-35 & n. 9 (7th Cir.1964) (noting the decision in Lapin , but entertaining an independent action seeking relief from a judgment of a California district court), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 652 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965). .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Younis Bros. & Co., Inc. v. CIGNA Worldwide Ins. Co.
exemplary damages and attorneys' fees are not money claims triable by jury, although they are awarded in a legal action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
Relying upon the rationale of Smith v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 538 F.Supp. 977, 982-86 (D.Del.1982), and Swofford v. B & W Inc., 34 F.R.D. 15, 19-20 (S.D.Tex.1963), aff'd, 336 F.2d 406 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 *1116 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivera Rosa v. Citibank, N.A.
See, Swofford v. B. & W., Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 409 (5 th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965). 2 After discussing both approaches, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held it was “of the view that the discretion under Rule 39(b) is very broad and that the case would be very rare indeed where a district court abused its discretion in denying or granting a Rule 39(b) motion.” Rowlett, 832 F.2d, at p. 200 .
cited
Cited "see"
Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
See Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 34 F.R.D. 15, 19-20 (S.D.Tex.1963), aff'd, 336 F.2d 406 (5 Cir.1964), *115 ce rt. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
See Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965); E-I-M Co. v. Philadelphia Gear Works, Inc., 223 F.2d 36 (5th Cir.1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 933 , 76 S.Ct. 304 , 100 L.Ed. 815 (1956); Jeoffroy Manufacturing, Inc. v. Graham, 206 F.2d 772 (5th Cir.1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 920 , 74 S.Ct. 515 , 98 L.Ed. 1075 (1954); Pyle National Co. v. Lewin, 92 F.2d 628 (7th Cir.1937); Anchor Hocking Glass Corp. v. White Cap Co., 47 F.Supp. 451 (D.Del.1942).
cited
Cited "see"
Patlex Corporation v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Etc.
See Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406 , 142 USPQ 291 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Verdia JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert BIRDSONG, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
(2×)
Accord, Swofford v. B&W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 409 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S. Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965); Albert v. R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brad Ragan, Inc. v. Shrader's Inc.
See Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 34 F.R.D. 15 (S.D.Tex.1963), aff’d., 336 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965) (jury trial; trial of damage issue in patent cases is “often difficult and expensive” yet “easily severed” from liability questions; additional opportunity for avoiding or settling damage issue created by separation; nonmovants failed to show “serious prejudice” in separation) (on appeal, court could not “think of an instance in a patent action where the damage issue is so interwoven with the other issues” that separ…
cited
Cited "see"
DC Comics, Inc. v. Filmation Associates
See Swofford v. B&W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barrington Manor Apartments Corp. v. United States
See Camellia, Apts., Inc. v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 224, 231 , 334 F. 2d 667, 672 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 963 (1965); Forrest Village Apts., Inc. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 490, 497 , 371 F. 2d 500, 504 (1967).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jenouri v. WAPA-TV Pegasus Broadcasting of San Juan, Inc.
Id.; see also Swofford v. B. & W., Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 409 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mag Instrument, Inc. v. J. Baxter Brinkmann International Corp.
See, e.g., Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965); Slater Electric, Inc. v. Indian Head, Inc., 38 Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Penn Square Bank, N.A. v. Myron J. Palermo
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2334 at 112 (1971); see also Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 408-09 (5th Cir.1964) (untimely demand for jury trial under Rule 38(b) has the effect of a motion for jury trial under Rule 39(b)), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee Pharmaceuticals v. Mishler
See also Swofford v. B & W, Incorporated, 336 F.2d 406 , 410 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cleveland J. Stockton and Dorothy Altman Stockton v. John A. Altman, and Eleanor Altman Curran
See also Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 5th Cir. 1964, 336 F.2d 406 , cert. denied 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965) and Thermo-Stitch, Inc. v. Chemi-Cord Processing Corp., 5th Cir. 1961, 294 F.2d 486 . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Petition of Petrol Shipping Corporation, as Owner of Tanker Atlantis, for an Order Directing the Kingdom of Greece, Ministry of Commerce, Purchase Directorate, to Proceed to Arbitration
Compare Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 423-427 , 84 S.Ct. 923 , 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964). 35 In the light of the above, we are not disposed to follow Oster v. Dominion of Canada, 144 F.Supp. 746 (N.D.N.Y.), aff'd 238 F.2d 400 (2 Cir. 1956), cert. den. 353 U.S. 936 , 77 S.Ct. 813 , 1 L.Ed.2d 759 (1957), 3 or Purdy Co. v. Argentina, 333 F.2d 95 (7 Cir. 1964), cert. den. 379 U.S. 962 , 85 S.Ct. 653 , 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965), to the extent they hold that a sovereign cannot be served in federal court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
St. Luke's Hospital Association of Cleveland
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 579.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 1965.
David A. Gaskill for petitioner.. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer and Fred E. Youngman for the United States. Charles E. Connor for Ohio Hospital Association, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
Cited by 151 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.