Marietta v. CSX Transp., 196 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Marietta v. CSX Transp., 196 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (47 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Atria Holdings, S.A. v. Golden Florida Trade LLC, JBWS Enterprise LLC, and Jaime Jimenez (flmd, 2025-12-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Atria Holdings, S.A. v. Golden Florida Trade LLC, JBWS Enterprise LLC, and Jaime Jimenez
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 13805 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PERLMAN v. Bolder Fund Services (Cayman), LTD.
S.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Fund. ‘Accordingly, Defendants assert that without joining the Joint Official Liquidators and Foreign Representatives, the Court cannot afford complete relief. —- : LEGAL STANDARD “Rule 19 provides a two-part test for determining whether an action should proceed in a nonparty’s absence.” Marietta v. CSY Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Palm Avenue Hialeah Trust v. Eisenberg
S.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty's absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TrendTex Fabrics, LTD v. BONNIE BROWN DESIGNS, INC.
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canto Marti v. Iberostar Hoteles Y Apartamentos SL
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty's absence will impede either the nonparty's protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Delvecchio Pizza, LLC
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AGS CONTRACTING LLC v. OUTSIDE THE BOX LLC
M.D. Ga. · 2022 · confidence medium
City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 8 (1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sirer v. Aksoy
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cuhaci v. Kouri Group, LP
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cuhaci v. Kouri Group, LP
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lavender Health Care, LLC v. Redstone LLC (2×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
It requires a consideration of “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty's absence will impede either the nonparty's protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.” City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999), certified question answered, 272 Ga. 612 , 533 S.E.2d 372 (2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers, P.A.
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir.1999) (recognizing that the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Senalle v. Geovera Specialty Insurance Company
S.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty's absence will impede either the nonparty's protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McNeal v. Coleman
S.D. Ga. · 2020 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[Under Rule 19] [t]he first question is whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moreiras v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
S.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plain Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
This requires deciding “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.” City of Marietta v. CSK Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Santiago v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 768 F. App’x. 1000, 1004 (11th Cir, 2019).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jemal Ahmed v. Elias Kifle
11th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Rule 19 presents “a two-part test for determining whether an action should proceed in a nonparty’s absence.” City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Landmark Equity Fund II, LLC v. Residential Fund 76, LLC
11th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raimbeault v. Accurate Machine & Tool, LLC
S.D. Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (Per Rule 19(a), the first question is “whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.”) Second, if the absent party’s joinder is not feasible — i.e., joinder would defeat the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the absent party is not subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, or the absent party properly objects to the venue of the action — t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund, Ltd.
S.D. Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The first question is whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.” Id. (quoting City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir.1999)). “ Tf the an swer to this first question is no,’ it is unnecessary to reach the second question, which requires the Court to determine if the case should proceed or be dismissed in the event joinder of required parties is not feasible.” …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sina v. Dillworth (In Re Ginn-La St. Lucie Ltd.)
Bankr. S.D. Florida · 2009 · confidence medium
A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (in) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rigel Ships Agencies, Inc.
11th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir.1999). 6 “The first question is whether complete relief can be afforded in the present procedural posture, or whether the nonparty’s absence will impede either the nonparty’s protection of an interest at stake or subject parties to a risk of inconsistent obligations.” Id.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. US/Intelicom, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Fla. · 2001 · confidence medium
Discussion Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 provides courts with “a two-part test for determining whether an action should proceed in a nonparty’s absence.” City of Marietta v. CSX Tramp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" Juan A. Salinas v. Sue Ann Ramsey
11th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999); Edmonds v. Bronner, 864 F.2d 752, 753-54 (11th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Bobby Jenkins
11th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" Butler v. ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY COM'N
Ala. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir.1999); Edmonds v. Bronner, 864 F.2d 752 , 753-54 applicable state law; and the questions are a guide.
cited Cited "see" Robert Butler v. The Alabama Judicial Inquiry
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir.1999); Edmonds v. Browner 864 F.2d 752 , 753-54 (11th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Robert Butler v. The Alabama Judicial Inquiry
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999); Edmonds v. Bronner 864 F.2d 752, 753-54 (11th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited "see" City of Marietta v. Csx Transportation, Inc. (2×)
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., 196 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited "see" Marietta v. CSX Transportation (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., 196 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited "see" Marietta v. CSX Transportation (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., 196 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Performance Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery, LLC
S.D. Fla. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Fla. 2014); see also City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc., 196 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marietta
v.
CSX Transportation
98-8436.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Nov 29, 1999.
196 F.3d 1300
Published
CITY OF MARIETTA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-8436.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 8, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 96-03509-1-CV- MHS); Marvin H. Shoob, Judge.

Before EDMONDSON, COX and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is our second opinion in this appeal in which the City of Marietta seeks to reverse summary judgment in favor of CSX Transportation on the City's claims arising from CSX's closure of two pedestrian

railroad crossings. See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., 196 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.1999). In the first opinion, we asked the Georgia Supreme Court whether "the public [can] acquire a right against the State of Georgia, and hence against its lessee CSX, to use the crossings at Depot and Dobbs Streets, such that the streets may not be closed without Marietta's consent?" Id. at 1309.

The Georgia Supreme Court has now answered the question "in the negative." City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., 272 Ga. 612, 615, --- S.E.2d ---- (2000). As we observed in certifying the question, a "no" would be dispositive of all of the City of Marietta's Georgia-law claims. See City of Marietta, 196 F.3d at

1307-08. The Georgia Supreme Court has not corrected our reading of Georgia law on that point, and we therefore conclude that the district court's summary judgment in CSX's favor must be

AFFIRMED.