Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of the Norfolk Sav. & Loan Corp. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. & Its Individual Partners, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/seaboard Nat'l & Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Est. of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Shirley A. Alexander v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. & Its Individual Partners v. Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of Norfolk Sav. & Loan Corp., & Norfolk Sav. & Loan Corp., Thomas L. Hofheimer, Amicus Curiae, 557 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of the Norfolk Sav. & Loan Corp. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. & Its Individual Partners, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/seaboard Nat'l & Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Est. of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Shirley A. Alexander v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. & Its Individual Partners v. Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of Norfolk Sav. & Loan Corp., & Norfolk Sav. & Loan Corp., Thomas L. Hofheimer, Amicus Curiae, 557 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Roberson v. Mullins (ca4, 1994-07-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roberson v. Mullins
4th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
While MacDonald and Abney could possibly be reconciled with Akers and O'Bar by confining the former to the criminal context, the Supreme Court did not explicitly so confine them and, in one instance, this Court has applied their rule in a civil case, MacKethan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 557 F.2d 395, 396 (4th Cir.1977) (citing Abney and stating that when a court of appeals reviews an appealable interlocutory order, it "should not ... consider[ ] other non-appealable assignments of error under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction"); see also San Filippo v. United States Trust Co. of New …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roberson v. Mullins
4th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
While MacDonald and Abney could possibly be reconciled with Akers and O’Bar by confining the former to the criminal context, the Supreme Court did not explicitly so confine them and, in one instance, this Court has applied their rule in a civil case, MacKethan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 557 F.2d 395, 396 (4th Cir.1977) (citing Abney and stating that when a court of appeals reviews an appealable interlocutory order, it "should not ... consider! ] other non-appealable assignments of error under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction”); see also San Filippo v. United States Trust Co. of …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.
Md. · 1978 · confidence medium
Supporting Peat & Co.’s contention that the circuit court’s determination was a “collateral order” final under Cohen , is an impressive array of federal and state authorities that have held that a trial judge’s denial of a motion to disqualify counsel is immediately appealable. 7 E.g., Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 496 F. 2d 800, 805 (2d Cir. 1974) (en banc); Kroungold v. Triester, 521 F. 2d 763, 765 (3d Cir. 1975); MacKethan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 557 F. 2d 395, 396 (4th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Zylstra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 578 F. 2d 102 , 1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation
v.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company and Its Individual Partners, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Shirley A. Alexander v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company and Its Individual Partners v. Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Thomas L. Hofheimer, Amicus Curiae
76-1979.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 27, 1977.
557 F.2d 395
Published

557 F.2d 395

Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan
Corporation, Appellee,
v.
PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & COMPANY and its Individual
Partners, Appellants,
Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H.
McCoy, Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard
Bank/Seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as
Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Defendants.
Shirley A. ALEXANDER et al., Appellees,
v.
PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL AND COMPANY and its Individual
Partners, Appellants,
v.
Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan
Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan
Corporation, Appellees.
Thomas L. Hofheimer, et al., Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 76-1979, 76-1980.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 4, 1977.
Decided May 23, 1977.
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1977.

R. Gordon Smith, Richmond, Va. (Robert H. Patterson, Jr., James L. Sanderlin, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellants Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

Oren R. Lewis, Jr., Arlington, Va. (John E. Fricker, Lewis, Wilson, Cowles, Lewis & Jones, Ltd., Arlington, Va., on brief), J. Vernon Patrick, Jr., Birmingham, Ala. (Barton S. Sacher, Berkowitz, Lefkovits & Patrick, Birmingham, Ala., on brief), for appellees in 76-1979 and 76-1980.

Marshall T. Bohannon, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Herbert & Bohannon, Norfolk, Va., on brief), and Jordan A. Pugh, III, Norfolk, Va., for appellees in 76-1980.

Alan J. Hofheimer, Norfolk, Va. (Hofheimer, Nusbaum & McPhaul, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for Amicus Curiae.

Before MOORE, Senior Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company appeal the orders of the district court dismissing a third party complaint against Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation and its receiver and refusing to disqualify counsel for the receiver and depositors. We conclude that the order denying disqualification of counsel is appealable because it is a final order collateral to the main proceeding. Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 496 F.2d 800 (2d Cir. 1974). Contra, Community Broadcasting v. FCC, 546 F.2d 1022 (D.C.Cir. 1976). Although dismissal of a third party complaint is ordinarily not appealable, we will consider the order under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. On the merits, the district court committed no error.

2

Affirmed.

ORDER ON REHEARING

3

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge.

4

While the petition for rehearing filed by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company was pending, the Supreme Court held that although an order denying a plea of double jeopardy constituted a final decision within the meaning of28 U.S.C. § 1291 and therefore was immediately appealable, the court of appeals should not have considered other non-appealable assignments of error under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Abney v. United States,--- U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). We believe that the principles of that case are applicable here.

5

Consequently, although we reiterate our ruling that the district court's order denying disqualification of counsel is appealable, we withdraw that part of our opinion in which we reviewed the dismissal of the third-party complaint under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. We now hold, in accordance with Abney, that we lacked jurisdiction under § 1291 to allow an appeal of the district court's interlocutory order dismissing the third-party complaint.

6

In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.

7

Entered with the concurrence of Senior Judge MOORE and Judge HALL.