Alligator Co., Inc. v. La Chemise Lacoste Et Al., 421 U.S. 937 (1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Alligator Co., Inc. v. La Chemise Lacoste Et Al., 421 U.S. 937 (1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1988 · 2 courts · …it would appear that jurisdictional questions should be reviewed at the first available opportunity, and i perceive no good reason for not permitting the removal issue to be raised in connection with an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. ✓
87 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank Of The United States (ca3, 1988-03-31) · Strongest negative: Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. William J. McCarthy (ca1, 1983-06-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. William J. McCarthy
1st Cir. · 1983 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see La Chemise LaCoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 344-45 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited "see" Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank Of The United States
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lovell's Supplemental Memorandum of Oct. 27, 1987, at 11 (citing La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 343-44 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975); Elberti v. Kunsman, 376 F.2d 567, 568 (3d Cir.1967); and Lindquist v. Dilkes, 127 F.2d 21, 25 (3d Cir.1942)); see also 14A Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, Sec. 3739, at 582, Sec. 3721 at 213, Sec. 3722 at 278 (jurisdiction is based on the facts at the time of removal). 36 We are uncertain that these cases stand for the broad proposition for which Lovell cites them.
discussed Cited "see" Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank of the United States
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lovell’s Supplemental Memorandum of Oct. 27, 1987, at 11 (citing La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 343-44 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975); Elberti v. Kunsman, 376 F.2d 567, 568 (3d Cir.1967); and Lindquist v. Dilkes, 127 F.2d 21, 25 (3d Cir.1942)); see also 14A Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 3739, at 582, § 3721 at 213, § 3722 at 278 (jurisdiction is based on the facts at the time of removal).
discussed Cited "see" Takeda v. Northwestern National Life Insurance (2×)
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339 , 341 (3d Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
cited Cited "see" No. 84-5811
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 341 (3d Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
cited Cited "see" Nobers v. Crucible, Inc.
W.D. Pa. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See La Chemise LaCoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir.1974) cert. denied 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
cited Cited "see" DB Orban, Inc. v. Orbex International, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See, La Chemise Lacoste v. The Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339 (CA 3, 1974), cert. den. 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 .
discussed Cited "see" Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gold Bondholders Protective Council, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D. Del. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See La Chemise La Coste v. Alligator Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 339, 343 (C.A.3,1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975); Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm., 465 F.2d 237, 241 (C.A.3,1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 943 , 93 S.Ct. 1367 , 35 L.Ed.2d 609 (1973); Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 448 F.2d 1328, 1330 (C.A.3, 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1019 , 92 S.Ct. 684 , 30 L.Ed.2d 688 (1972); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Pa. Human Relations Comm., supra, 463 F.Supp. at 125 .
discussed Cited "see" Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See La- *122 Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975); Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 465 F.2d 237, 241 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 943 , 93 S.Ct. 1367 , 35 L.Ed.2d 609 (1973).
cited Cited "see" Ashley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
W.D. Tex. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See, La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 339 (3rd Cir. 1974) cert. den. 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hughes v. Fidelity Bank
E.D. Pa. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ordinarily, the “plaintiff is the master of his or her own complaint and is free to ignore the federal cause of action and rest the claim solely on a state cause of action.” Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367, 1370 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2319 , 85 L.Ed.2d 839 (1985); see also La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 346 (3d Cir.1974) (remanding to state court when complaint relied on state trademark law and did not assert Lanham Act violation), ce rt. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O'Halloran v. University of Washington
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Alligator Co. v. La Chemise LaCoste, 421 U.S. 937, 938 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 1666, 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975) (Justice White, dissenting, said that “it would appear that jurisdictional questions should be reviewed at the first available opportunity, and I perceive no good reason for not permitting the removal issue to be raised in connection with an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.”); Kysor Indus.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Elizabeth O'HallOran v. University of Washington, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Third-Party-Defendant
3rd Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Alligator Co. v. La Chemise LaCoste, 421 U.S. 937, 938 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 1666, 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975) (Justice White, dissenting, said that "it would appear that jurisdictional questions should be reviewed at the first available opportunity, and I perceive no good reason for not permitting the removal issue to be raised in connection with an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction."); Kysor Indus.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Deats v. Joseph Swantak, Inc.
N.D.N.Y. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Hopkins Erecting Co. v. Briarwood Apartments, 517 F.Supp. 243, 251-52 (E.D.Ky.1981); see also La Chemise Lacoste v. The Alligator Company, Inc., 506 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Powers v. South Central United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Health & Welfare Trust
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 10 , 71 S.Ct. 534, 538 , 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951) (“The Congress, in [§ 1441], carried out its purpose to abridge the right of removal”); Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 , 61 S.Ct. 868, 872 , 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) (referring to precursor to § 1441); see also La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937, 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kathleen Powers v. South Central United Food & Commercial Workers Unions And Employers Health & Welfare Trust
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 10 , 71 S.Ct. 534, 538 , 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951) ("The Congress, in [Sec. 1441], carried out its purpose to abridge the right of removal"); Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 , 61 S.Ct. 868, 872 , 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) (referring to precursor to Sec. 1441); see also La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975). 18 The "original jurisdiction" to which section 1441 refers can rest with the federal courts because of diversity of citizens…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Elizabethtown, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.
D. Del. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 374 F.Supp. 52, 63-68 (D.Del.), vacated on other grounds, 506 F.2d 339 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975) (where the Court discussed the merits of plaintiffs attempt to enforce as a third-party beneficiary a consent decree between two private parties).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nolan v. Otis Elevator Co.
D.N.J. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d 339 (CA 3, 1974), cert. den. 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Societa Anonima Lucchese Olii E. Vini v. Catania Spagna Corp.
D. Mass. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Company, Inc., 506 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied 421 U.S. 937 , 95 S.Ct. 1666 , 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975); J.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Alligator Company, Inc.
v.
La Chemise Lacoste and Jean Patou, Inc
74-1037.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 2, 1975.
421 U.S. 937
White, Black-Mun, Powell.
Cited by 74 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

See 421 U.S. 1006, 95 S.Ct. 2408.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice POWELL join, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Mr. Justice White, with whom Mr. Justice Black-mun and Mr. Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

Respondent La Chemise Lacoste (LCL) initiated this trademark litigation by filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the Delaware state courts. Petitioner removed it to the District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (a). The District Court denied respondent’s motion for a remand under 28 U. S. C. § 1447(c). See 313 F. Supp. 915 (Del. 1970). The District Court also denied respondent’s motion for a certificate allowing an interlocutory appeal of the removal question under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). When the trial court denied its motion for a preliminary injunction, respondent appealed but did not raise the removal issue; and in affirming the denial of the preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals did not discuss the question. 487 F. 2d 312 (CA3 1973)..

The District Court then conducted a six-day trial on the merits and concluded that petitioner was entitled to injunctive relief. 374 F. Supp. 52 (1974). Respondent then appealed from the final judgment. This time it also raised the removal question. The Court of Appeals ruled that this appeal represented the first opportunity that LCL had to have the District Court’s decision denying remand reviewed. There thus had been no waiver of the removal question, and this Court’s decision in Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp., 405 U. S. 699 (1972), had no application. The Court of Appeals then reversed[*938] the District Court on the removal question and ordered a remand to the state court. 506 F. 2d 339 (1974).

In holding that the refusal to remand a removal case could not be raised on an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction, the decision of the Court of Appeals departs from its prior holding in Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp., 184 F. 2d 537, 538 (1950), cert. denied, 341 U. S. 903 (1951), and conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals in Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 480 F. 2d 801 (CA2 1973), and Kysor Industrial Corp. v. Pet, Inc., 459 F. 2d 1010, 1011 (CA6), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 980 (1972). Furthermore, it would appear that jurisdictional questions should be reviewed at the first available opportunity, and I perceive no good reason for not permitting the removal issue to be raised in connection with an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.* Had that course been followed here, six days of trial and a decision on the merits would not have been wasted. Also, if it were to be held that the appeal on the injunction issue is a suitable occasion for considering the remand question, then Grubbs, supra, should be extended so as to require that the question be raised on such an appeal. Other[*939] wise, wasteful litigation is invited, and the losing party-on the merits is given another bite at the apple.

I would grant certiorari in this case to resolve the conflict among the Circuits.

The authorities relied upon by the Court of Appeals—Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U. S. 574, 578 (1954); Wilkins v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 401 F. 2d 151 (CA2 (1968); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts §41, p. 147 (2d ed. 1970) — support the principle that the denial of a motion for remand alone is not a basis for appeal, but they do not support the lower court’s decision that the removal question cannot be raised upon appeal from the denial of an interlocutory injunction. Petitioner’s position on that issue is supported by Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U. S. 282, 287 (1940), which held that the District Court’s denial of motions to dismiss could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals upon an appeal from the granting of an interlocutory injunction.