Welford L. Cotton, James Roger Cotton v. Otis Elevator Co., a New Jersey Corp. Richard M. Whiston, 873 F.2d 1438 (4th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Welford L. Cotton, James Roger Cotton v. Otis Elevator Co., a New Jersey Corp. Richard M. Whiston, 873 F.2d 1438 (4th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
111 citation events (78 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jeanne Lyliane Gbete, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sampson Bladen Oil Company, Inc. d/b/a/ Han-Dee Hugo’s (nced, 2026-04-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jeanne Lyliane Gbete, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sampson Bladen Oil Company, Inc. d/b/a/ Han-Dee Hugo’s
E.D.N.C. · 2026 · confidence medium
A controlling question of law is “a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ADAM JOSEPHS v. AMENTUM SERVICES INC., et al.
D. Maryland · 2026 · confidence medium
Interlocutory appeal is an “extraordinary remedy.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, at *2 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Konya v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
D. Maryland · 2025 · confidence medium
Md.2013)), not “questions of law heavily freighted with the necessity for factual assessment, id. (citing Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCollum v. Robeson County
E.D.N.C. · 2024 · confidence medium
A controlling question of law is “a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sealed 1 v. Patriot Front
E.D. Va. · 2024 · confidence medium
The mere fact that the resolution of the question sought to be certified “‘may save pre- trial and trial effort and expense is not determinative.’” Hutchens, 2020 WL 6121950 , at *6 (quoting Fannin, 873 F.2d at 1438).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation
D. Maryland · 2021 · confidence medium
The model “controlling question of law” is one that is a “narrow question of pure law whose resolution would be completely dispositive of the litigation.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989)(unpublished).
discussed Cited "see" Schnupp v. Blair Pharmacy, Inc.
D. Maryland · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
To illustrate, a controlling question of law is a question as to the “meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision, regulation, or common law doctrine,” not a “question[] of law heavily freighted with the necessity for factual assessment.” Butler, 307 F.R.D. at 452 ; see Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (table) (“Certainly the kind of question best adapted to discretionary interlocutory review is a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter,…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mashni
D.S.C. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table opinion).
cited Cited "see" Herrington v. Swyter (In Re Swyter)
E.D. Va. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, *5 (4th Cir. Apr.26, 1989) (unpublished).
cited Cited "see" KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P. v. Estate of Nelco, Ltd.
E.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fannin, 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583 at *5 .
discussed Cited "see" Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Newman & Sons, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 696 F.Supp. 160, 162 (D.Md.1988) (concluding that benefit from a rebid is too speculative to satisfy the jurisdictional amount), aff'd, 873 F.2d 1438 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 854 , 110 S.Ct. 158 , 107 L.Ed.2d 116 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fitzer v. Allergan, Inc.
D. Maryland · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Md. 2013)); see also Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision) (“Certainly the kind of question best adapted to discretionary interlocutory review is a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Feinberg v. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
D. Maryland · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Md. 2013)); see also Fannin vy, CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision) (emphasis added) (“Certainly the kind of question best adapted to discretionary interlocutory review is a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Prince George's County, Maryland v. Wells Fargo & Co.
D. Maryland · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
At the same time, the Fourth Circuit has cautioned that section 1292(b) “should be used sparingly and thus that its requirements must be strictly construed.” Myles v. Laffitte, 881 F.2d 125, 127 (4th Cir. 1989); see also Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished) (“[T]he kind of question best adapted to discretionary interlocutory review is a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation[.]”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bond v. Marriott International, Inc.
D. Maryland · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
However, the Fourth Circuit has made clear that “1292(b) should be used sparingly and ... its requirements should be strictly construed.” Patterson v. United States, 881 F.2d 127 (4th Cir.1989); see also Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 (4th Cir.1989) (“[I]nterlocutory review is not to be granted lightly....
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kore Holdings, Inc. v. Rosen
D. Maryland · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
“An order involves a controlling question of law when either (1) reversal of the bankruptcy court’s order would terminate the action, or (2) determination of the issue on appeal would materially affect the outcome of the litigation.” In re Travelstead, 250 B.R. 862, 865-66 (D.Md.2000); see also Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir.1989) (Table) (a controlling question of law is “a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Rood
D. Maryland · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
"An order involves a controlling question of law when either (1) reversal of the bankruptcy court's order would terminate the action, or (2) determination of the issue on appeal would materially affect the outcome of the litigation." In re Travelstead, 250 B.R. 862, 865-66 (D.Md.2000); see also Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438 , 1989 WL 42583, at *5 (4th Cir.1989) (Table) (a controlling question of law is "a narrow question of pure law whose resolution will be completely dispositive of the litigation, either as a legal or practical matter, whichever way it goes").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Welford L. Cotton, James Roger Cotton
v.
Otis Elevator Company, a New Jersey Corporation Richard M. Whiston
88-2529.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 4, 1989.
873 F.2d 1438
Unpublished

873 F.2d 1438
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Welford L. COTTON, James Roger Cotton, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation; Richard M.
Whiston, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-2529.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 8, 1988.
Decided: April 4, 1989.

Bert McClellan Grimm, Jr. (John F. Wood, Jr., Wood, Grimm & Delp, on brief), for appellants.

Richard D. Owen (Stephen P. Goodwin, Goodwin & Goodwin, on brief), for appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

We have heard an earlier appeal in this same case, Cotton v. Otis Elevator Company, No. 87-3552 Slip. Op. (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 1986) (unpublished). Now, the plaintiffs contest the validity of the district court's order requiring them to release the judgment as having been satisfied. We think there is an inadequate record to support the district court's order, and we vacate and remand.

2

Pursuant to a contract between the parties, Otis Elevator (Otis) apparently made payments to Welford L. Cotton and James Robert Cotton (Cottons) of principal and interest in November 1982 and November 1983. A dispute arose over an indemnity clause in the contract, and this litigation ensued. Prior to trial, the parties entered into a stipulation that the amount unpaid on the contract was $165,000 plus interest at 9% from November 19, 1981 to the then present date, March 8, 1987. The district court, on March 20, 1987, decided for the Cottons at trial and entered its judgment of $165,000 plus 9% interest from November 19, 1981 until the date of the entry of its judgment and 10% interest from the date of entry of judgment until payment. Otis appealed, and we affirmed. Cotton v. Otis Elevator, No. 87-3552 Slip. Op (4th Cir.1986) (unpublished). On March 29, 1988, Otis paid the Cottons $254,572.32 which it says is $165,000 principal plus 9% interest from November 19, 1983 and 10% interest from March 20, 1987. Otis, relying on its March 29, 1988 payment, and what it claims are 1982 and 1983 payments of interest, moved for the court to require the Cottons to release the judgment as satisfied. The district court ordered the release, and the Cottons appealed. The primary issue on appeal is whether any interest payments made by Otis in 1982 and 1983 should be credited against the judgment.

3

On the one hand, we have the March, 1987 stipulation and the March, 1987 judgment of the district court which tend to show that the 1982 and 1983 payments had been taken into account when the stipulation was entered into and the judgment was entered. On the other hand, we have the present order appealed from which tends to show that Otis will have to pay a debt twice if the 1982 and 1983 payments are not credited to the judgment.

4

The district court made no findings of fact. The record is devoid of evidence as to whether the stipulation was entered into by mistake. There is also no conclusion as to whether any such mistake may now be corrected. There is nothing in the record to show whether any interest payments made in 1982 and 1983 should be credited against the judgment. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to take such evidence as it may deem appropriate regarding the dispute and to issue its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its reconsideration of the matter at hand.

5

VACATED AND REMANDED.