Potter v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc., 314 F.2d 45 (4th Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Potter v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc., 314 F.2d 45 (4th Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rodgers v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance (vawd, 1997-01-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Rodgers v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
W.D. Va. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Potter v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc., 203 F.Supp. 462, 467 (D.Md.1962), (noting that “[t]he authorities are uniform that ... the ‘amended pleading, motion, order or other paper’ must emanate from either the voluntary act of the plaintiff in the state court, or other acts or events not the product of the removing defendant’s activity”), aff'd, 314 F.2d 45 (4th Cir.1963).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products
S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Adams v. Lederle Labs., 569 F.Supp. 234, 247 (W.D.Mo.1983) ("Where the second paragraph of section 1446(b) provides the operative law for a case, it is obvious that a defendant's acts in the state court, taken before the case became removable or before the defendant was able to determine that the case was removable, cannot be taken as a waiver of the right to remove."). [58] Potter v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc., 203 F.Supp. 462, 467 (D.Md.1962), aff'd, 314 F.2d 45 (4th Cir.1963) (citations omitted). [59] Objections (quoting Complaint II ¶¶ 8, 10, 37, 41). [60] See Compl. ¶¶ 1…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Johansen v. Employee Benefit Claims, Inc.
D. Minnesota · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Potter v. Carvel Stores, Inc., 203 F.Supp. 462 (D.Md.1962) aff 'd. 314 F.2d 45 (4th Cir.1963) (“other paper” had to emanate either from voluntary acts of plaintiff or events not the products of defendant’s activity.) Despite the plausibility of this interpretation every court which has faced the issue present in this case has construed the phrase “or other paper” as referring solely to documents generated within the state court litigation itself.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Howard D. Potter
v.
Carvel Stores of New York, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New York, Carvel Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New York, Carvel Dari-Freeze Stores, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New York, and Chain Locations of America, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New York
8685.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 24, 1963.
314 F.2d 45
1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6324
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

314 F.2d 45

Howard D. POTTER, Appellant,
v.
CARVEL STORES OF NEW YORK, INC., a corporation of the State of New York, Carvel Corporation, a corporation of the State of New York, Carvel Dari-Freeze Stores, Inc., a corporation of the State of New York, and Chain Locations of America, Inc., a corporation of the State of New York, Appellees.

No. 8685.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 22, 1963.

Decided January 24, 1963.

Arnold Fleischmann, Towson, Md. (Lawrence I. Weisman, and Nyburg, Goldman & Walter, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.

Herbert F. Roth, New York City (Amen, Weisman & Butler, New York City, and Smith & Harrison, Towson, Md., on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~45–46]1

The plaintiff in this antitrust action appeals from a denial of a motion to enjoin an action by one of the defendants in a state court to collect unpaid rental upon real estate sublet to the plaintiff, and for an order of ejectment. The plaintiff is not now, and for some time has not been, using the property, but contends it is entitled to prevent the lessor's repossession of the premises because of the plaintiff's unverified allegations of fraud in the procurement of the sublease and related agreements and of claimed violation of the antitrust laws.

2

Under the circumstances more fully disclosed in the opinion of the District Judge,[*] and for the reasons stated by him, we think that the refusal to enjoin the state court proceedings is unassailable on appeal. If he might have granted the injunction, denial of the motion was certainly within the range of the discretion lodged in him and is consistent with the principle of Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 79 S.Ct. 429, 3 L.Ed.2d 475.

3

Affirmed.

Notes:

*

Potter v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc., D.C., 203 F.Supp. 462