green
Positive treatment
2.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Hollon v. Oy
See Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 883 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.1987), appeal after remand, 869 F.2d 879 , reh’g denied, 875 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 , 110 S.Ct. 150 , 107 L.Ed.2d 108 (1989). 1 In Hensgens, the court discussed the competing interests that are affected when a plaintiff seeks to add a nondiverse defendant to an already-removed case.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Norplant Contraceptive Prod. Liability
See Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.1987), appeal after remand, 869 F.2d 879 , reh'g denied, 875 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 , 110 S.Ct. 150 , 107 L.Ed.2d 108 (1989). [1] In Hensgens, the court discussed the competing interests that are affected when a plaintiff seeks to add a nondiverse defendant to an already-removed case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Selman v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
See Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.1987), appeal after remand, 869 F.2d 879 , reh’g denied, 875 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 , 110 S.Ct. 150 , 107 L.Ed.2d 108 (1989). 1 In Hensgens, the court discussed the competing interests which are affected when a plaintiff seeks to add a nondiverse defendant to an already-removed case and stated that “the district court, when confronted with an amendment to add a nondiverse nonindispensable party, should use its discretion in deciding whether to allow that party to be added.” Id. at 1182.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Norplant Contracep. Prods. Liability Lit.
See Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.1987), appeal after remand, 869 F.2d 879 , reh'g denied, 875 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 , 110 S.Ct. 150 , 107 L.Ed.2d 108 (1989). [1] In Hensgens, the court discussed the competing interests which are affected when a plaintiff seeks to add a nondiverse defendant to an already-removed case and stated that "the district court, when confronted with an amendment to add a nondiverse nonindispensable party, should use its discretion in deciding whether to allow that party to be added." Id. at 1182.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Deutsche Shell Tanker-Gesellschaft mbH v. Placid Refining Co.
See, e.g., Lloyd’s Leasing Ltd. v. Conoco, 868 F.2d 1447 (5th Cir.) (oilspill property damage suffered about 70 miles from the offending vessel was not reasonably forseeable), reh’g en banc denied mem., 875 F.2d 858 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hulsey (Daniel P.)
v.
Usair, Inc
v.
Usair, Inc
87-1886.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 12, 1989.
Published
Hulsey (Daniel P.)
v.
USAir, Inc.
NO. 87-1886
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
MAY 12, 1989
N.D.Tex., 868 F.2d 1423
1
DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC.