green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…this circuit has stressed the importance of timeliness and the wide discretion afforded the district courts.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Houey v. Carolina First Bank
the tardiness of the motion is the strongest reason supporting its denial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
this circuit has stressed the importance of timeliness and the wide discretion afforded the district courts.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance
this circuit has stressed the importance of timeliness and the wide discretion afforded the district courts.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Public Interest Research Group v. Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC
But, the “presumption of corporate separateness [may] be overcome by clear evidence that the parent in fact controls the activities of the subsidiary.” Escude Cruz, 619 F.2d at 905 ; accord Third Nat’l Bank v. WEDGE Group, Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1090 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990); cf. Mangual v. General Battery Corp., 710 F.2d 15, 21 (1st Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Michael Northrup and Homer Max Wiesen v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
See Gould v. Alleco, Inc. , 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
O'REILLY v. Brodie
See Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1989). *60 This general rule is consistent with the fundamental nature of a class suit as a representative procedural tool. 2 Newberg & Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 1.02 (3rd ed.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lisa Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P. Motel 6 G.P., Inc. Accor North America Corporation and Accor S.A.
See Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087 , 1090 n. 1 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990); Velandra v. Regie Nationale des Usines Renault, 336 F.2d 292, 296 (6th Cir.1964).
cited
Cited "see"
Ralph M. Nowak, Administrator of the Estate of Sally Ann Nowak v. Tak How Investments, Ltd., D/B/A Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Harbour View
See Third Nat’l Bank v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1091 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 ; Southern Mach.
cited
Cited "see"
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Tryg International Insurance Company, Ltd.
See Third Nat’l Bank v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1089 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has observed that “... three-cornered negotiations are clumsy at best____” Mars Steel, 834 F.2d at 684 ; accord, Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 285 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. 163 Pleasant Street Corp.
But, the “presumption of corporate separateness [may] be overcome by clear evidence that the parent in fact controls the activities of the subsidiary.” Escude Cruz, 619 F.2d at 905 ; accord Third Nat’l Bank v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1090 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990); cf. Mangual v. General Battery Corp., 710 F.2d 15, 21 (1st Cir.1983) (“While the parent-subsidiary relationship in itself is insufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction, the close relationship between the two companies is a relevant factor that may …
discussed
Cited "see"
United Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers of America v. 163 Pleasant Street Corporation, International Twist Drill (Holdings), Limited, United Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers of America v. 163 Pleasant Street Corporation
But, the "presumption of corporate separateness [may] be overcome by clear evidence that the parent in fact controls the activities of the subsidiary." Escude Cruz, 619 F.2d at 905 ; accord Third Nat'l Bank v. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1090 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990); cf. Mangual v. General Battery Corp., 710 F.2d 15, 21 (1st Cir.1983) ("While the parent-subsidiary relationship in itself is insufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction, the close relationship between the two companies is a relevant factor that may be consi…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Sierra Club in Re Energy Research Foundation in Re Citizens for Clean Air and Water in Re Environmentalists, Incorporated in Re Citizens Asking for a Safe Environment, Incorporated (Case), Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, on Behalf of Itself and Its Members v. State of South Carolina Carroll A. Campbell, Jr., Governor of the State of South Carolina Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control, in Re Sierra Club in Re Energy Research Foundation in Re Citizens for Clean Air and Water in Re Environmentalists, Incorporated, Thermalkem, Incorporated v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control Michael D. Jarrett Henry S. Jordan John B. Pate William E. Applegate, III Toney Graham, Jr. John H. Burriss Richard E. Jabbour Currie B. Spivey Harry M. Hallman, Jr., Current and Former Members of the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control
See Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990). 10 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for two types of intervention.
cited
Cited "see"
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. South Carolina
See Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney
See, also, Gould v. Alleco (C.A.4, 1989), 883 F.2d 281 , 286, certiorari denied (1990), 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 ; Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods (C.A.9, 1978), 572 F.2d 657, 659 , certiorari denied sub nom.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bacik v. Peek
See, e.g., Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v. WEDGE Group, Inc., 882 F.2d 1087, 1089 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mark Schwartz v. Electronic Data Systems, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Third Nat’l Bank v. Wedge Group, Inc., 882 F.2d 1087 , 1090 n. 1 (6th Cir.1989) (parent-subsidiary relationship a “contact or factor to be considered”) (quoting Velandra v. Regie National des Usines Renault, 336 F.2d 292, 297 (6th Cir.1964)), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990); Donatelli v. National Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 465-66 (1st Cir.1990) (“agency” relationship between parent and subsidiary a factor in establishing personal jurisdiction).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fouche v. Denihan
See, also, Gould v. Alleco (C.A.4, 1989), 883 F.2d 281 , 286, certiorari denied (1990), 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 870 , 107 L.Ed.2d 953 ; Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods (C.A.9, 1978), 572 F.2d 657, 659 , certiorari denied sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wedge Group Inc.
v.
Third National Bank in Nashville
v.
Third National Bank in Nashville
No. 89-945.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 1990.
Published
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (2) · W.D. North Carolina (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.