In Re \Agent Orange\" Prod. Liab. Litig.", 804 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re \Agent Orange\" Prod. Liab. Litig.", 804 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Golden v. Firstmark Services LLC (nyeb, 2025-07-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Golden v. Firstmark Services LLC
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 2025 · confidence medium
Litig., 804 F.2d 19, 20 (2d Cir. 1986)). * * * Having established that the Nken test is the appropriate test to apply to the facts in this case, and clarified what guidance the law in this Circuit offers to courts on how to apply the Nken factors, the Court now considers each factor of the Nken test in turn, considering that the resolution of this motion is “‘an exercise of judicial discretion’” and that the Defendants “bear[] the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of discretion.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Virginian, 47 U.S. at 672-73).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ACC Bondholder Group v. Adelphia Communications Corp. (In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.) (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · confidence medium
Litig., 804 F.2d 19, 20 (2d Cir.1986) (declining to lift the court’s own stay of the implementation of a district court’s scheme for the distribution of a settlement award because the pending appeals "involve[d] numerous complex issues arising out of [] extraordinary litigation,” the objecting parties had "a right to appellate review,” and “distribution of the challenged settlement award before its validity [could be] tested would deprive those parties of that right”). 41 .
cited Cited "see" United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Daspin
2d Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litig., 804 F.2d 19, 20 (2d Cir.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re “AGENT ORANGE” PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION
Docket 86-6173.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 22, 1986.
804 F.2d 19
Neil R. Peterson, Philadelphia, Pa. (Greitzer and Locks, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas W. Henderson, Henderson & Goldberg, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiffs’ Management Committee., Kenneth R. Feinberg, Washington, D.C. (Kaye, Scholer, Fieman, Hays & Handler, Washington, D.C., of counsel), Special Master.
Van Graafeiland, Winter, Miner.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #21,656 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. Kansas (2) · S.D. New York (1)
PER CURIAM:

On August 19, 1986, attorneys for the plaintiff class moved this panel, which has been designated to hear all further matters in this litigation, to stay implementation of the district court’s scheme for distribution of the settlement award. We granted the stay on August 26, 1986. On October 1, 1986, at an oral argument regarding the validity and propriety of the distribution scheme, we were asked to lift that stay. [1][*20] We decline to do so.

The appeals pending before this panel involve numerous complex issues arising out of this extraordinary litigation. Among those issues are a non-frivolous challenge to the validity of the settlement on grounds of inadequacy and improper certification of a plaintiff class. The merits of the distribution scheme are also now being challenged on appeal on non-frivolous grounds. Parties objecting to the settlement and the distribution scheme have a right to appellate review in this court. Distribution of the challenged settlement award before its validity has been tested would deprive those parties of that right. Moreover, a stay is particularly appropriate where the challenge to the distribution scheme involves a claim that some proposed recipients may not be entitled to an award because they were not injured by Agent Orange. Where the identity of those entitled to recover from the fund is in doubt, no claim of irreparable harm can be made.

We emphasize that our granting of a stay does not imply any view of the merits of any particular question, other than that the questions are non-frivolous.

1

. This request was made by the Special Master who appeared before us to defend the distribu[*20] tion scheme. We invited him to appear and to assume that role in light of the absence of a party adverse to those challenging the distribution scheme.