How cited: United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit · Go Syfert

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit (1958)

green · 112 citation events across 26 courts. Showing the 33 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
195819922026
But See · W.D. Pa. · signal: but see · 3 citations in this opinion
But see Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334 (3rd Cir. 1958). 7 .
Rule Authority · SCOTUS · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 596 F. 2d 914 , 918 (CA9 1979); Underwood, 256 F. 2d, at 339; cf. Caspary, 725 F. 2d, at 191-192 (relying on Fed.
Quote Authority · 3rd Cir. · signal: see · 5 citations in this opinion
See Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 337 (3d Cir. 1958) (“Pennsylvania has forbidden a suit by or against an unincorporated association to be maintained as a class action.”).
“Pennsylvania has forbidden a suit by or against an unincorporated association to be maintained as a class action.”
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 554 F.2d 1254, 1259 (3d Cir.1977) (“When the rule of complete diversity is read in conjunction with the principle that the citizenship of a partnership depends upon that of its members, it becomes clear that diversity jurisdiction may not obtain here, unless all of the members of the plaintiff partnership are of distinct citizenship from all of the defendants.”); Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338 (3d Cir.1958) (“[WJhere jurisdiction …
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Emps. of the Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 614 F.2d 846, 853 (3d Cir.1980); Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338-39 (3d Cir.1958).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 554 F.2d 1254, 1259 (3d Cir. 1977) (“When the rule of complete diversity is read in conjunction with the principle that the citizenship of a partnership depends upon that of its members, it becomes clear that diversity jurisdiction may not obtain here, unless all of the members of the plaintiff partnership are of distinct citizenship from all of the defendants.”); Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338 (3d Cir. 1958) (“[W]here jurisdictio…
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Fritzinger v. Weist, 395 U.S. 903 , 89 S.Ct. 1739 , 23 L.Ed.2d 217 (1969); Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338, 341 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1958).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Fritzinger v. Weist, 395 U.S. 903 , 89 S.Ct. 1739 , 23 L.Ed.2d 217 (1969); Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338, 341 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1958).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 337-38 (3d Cir. 1958).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
But as to diversity cases like this one, “the purpose of [Rule 17(b)] is to keep or bring the procedure of the federal courts in conformity with that of the courts of the state in which the district court is held.” Maloney, 256 F.2d at 341 (internal quotations omitted). 9 a corporation to register a fictitious name by itself does not impair the validity of any contract entered into under that name. 54 Pa. Cons.
internal quotations omitted
Quote Authority · W.D. Pa. · signal: see
See Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 337 (3d Cir. 1958) (“Pennsylvania has forbidden a suit by or against an unincorporated association to be maintained as a class action.”).
“Pennsylvania has forbidden a suit by or against an unincorporated association to be maintained as a class action.”
Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.
Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 339 (3d Cir. 1958) (unions). 13 District courts addressing this issue in circuits without direct authority from their respective courts of appeals—including all of those that have done so in this circuit—overwhelmingly side with the majority regime.
unions
Quote Authority · D. Del. · signal: see also
By not individually identifying each partner of Emerson Partners, the Amended Complaint, on its own, does not provide sufficient information to allow the Court to “trace [citizenship] through however many layers of partners or members there may be.” Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420 (quoting Hart v. Terminex Int'l, 336 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2003)); see also Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338 (3d Cir. 1958) (“Indeed, in the complaints ... there are not even averments of the re…
“Indeed, in the complaints ... there are not even averments of the respective citi-zenships of all the members of the [associations]”
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 341 (3rd Cir.1958); Kenrich Corporation v. Miller, 256 F.Supp. 15, 17 (E.D.Pa.1966).
Quote Authority · E.D. Pa. · signal: see
See Plechner v. Widener College, Inc., 569 F.2d 1250 (3d Cir. 1977) and cf. Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334 (3d Cir. 1958) (“[s]ince 1939 the law of Pennsylvania has forbidden a suit by or against an unincorporated association to be maintained as a class action, such suits must be deemed to be brought . . . against the unincorporated association itself”).
“[s]ince 1939 the law of Pennsylvania has forbidden a suit by or against an unincorporated association to be maintained as a class action, such suits must be deemed to be brought . . . against the unincorporated association itself”
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Eight partners in that firm are citizens of Maryland, 14 as is Hudson, and “for purposes of diversity jurisdiction the citizenships of the members of the respective unincorporated associations have to be shown to be diverse.” Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 341 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1968).
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 340 (3 Cir.), cert, denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 97 (1958).” Berkowitz v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., supra, 303 F. 2d at 588 .
green Burton v. Peartree (1971)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Moreover, “[i]t must be borne in mind that the issue of jurisdiction is always open and should be determined in limine by a trial court.” Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 340 (3 Cir. 1958). *760 IV.
Rule Authority · W.D. Mich.
Smith v. McCullough, 1926, 270 U.S. 456 , 46 S.Ct. 338 , 70 L.Ed. 682 ; Gibbs v. Buck, 1939, 307 U.S. 66 , 59 S.Ct. 725 , 83 L.Ed. 1111 ; Miller v. Brown Shipbuilding Co., 5 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 956 ; Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, at 338 (C.A.3, 1958).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
See also Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 640 , 84 S.Ct. 805 , 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964); Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 337 (3 Cir. 1958), cert, denied 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 97 (1958).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 340 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1958).” 1 In view of the above language of the United States Court of Appeals for the-Third Circuit, the following order is being entered, directing the parties to. complete the record for purposes of arguing the above Motion within sixty-days: ORDER AND NOW, June 29, 1962, IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall make a matter of record in this case, within sixty (60) days of …
green Dawson v. Delaney (1960)
Rule Authority · D. Del.
Furthermore, as pointed out in footnote 5 of the opinion by the Court of Appeals, (Under wood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 339 (C.A. 3rd, 1958)), after amended complaints were filed in the District Court, no motions to dismiss based on lack of diversity jurisdiction were filed by the International.
Cited (see also) · 9th Cir. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See also Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 338 (C.A. 3 1958); United Steelworkers of America, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. R.
Cited (see also) · 5th Cir. · signal: compare
Compare Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334 (3d Cir.1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1959) (holding that because Pennsylvania law forbids class actions against unincorporated associations, a federal court sitting in diversity cannot entertain one), with 7A C.
green Falcone v. Dantinne (1970)
Cited · 3rd Cir. · signal: see
See note 5, supra. 9 Chief Judge Hastie articulated this objective in Harris v. International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1291, 321 F.2d 801, 805 (3d Cir. 1963) See also, Underwood v. Maloney, 152 F.Supp. 648, 660-661 (E.D.Pa.1957), modified on other grounds, 256 F.2d 334 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1958), for statement of a similar principle prior to the LMRDA, and Phillips v. Osborne, 403 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir. 1968); Nels…
green Falcone v. Dantinne (1969)
Cited (see also) · 3rd Cir. · signal: see also
See also, Underwood v. Maloney, 152 F.Supp. 648, 660-661 (E.D.Pa.1957), modified on other grounds, 256 F.2d 334 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1958), for statement of a similar principle prior to the LMRDA, and Phillips v. Osborne, 403 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir. 1968); Nelson v. Johnson, 212 FSupp. 233, 257-270 (D.Minn.1962), aff’d, 325 F.2d 646 (8th Cir. 1963) ; Gleason v. Chain Service Restaurant, 300 F.Supp. 1241, 1250 (S.D.N.Y.1969) ; No…
Cited (see also) · 3rd Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334 (3 Cir. 1958). 19 .
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See Underwood v. Maloney, 3 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 334 , 337 note 3, 342; Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 149 F.Supp. 695 ; D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 152 F.Supp. 19 .
Cited (see also) · S.D. Ohio · signal: see also
See Davis v. Lifetime Capital, Inc., 560 Fed.Appx. 477 , 478 n. 2 (6th Cir.2014) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b)(3) and stating that “[i]f a party is not a corporation or an individual and the party is asserting a state-law claim, then the law of the state where the court is located determines capacity”) (emphasis added); see also Underwood v. Malo-ney, 256 F.2d 334, 337 (3d Cir.1958) (stating that Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b) “provides that in cases by or against unincorporated associatio…
Cited · N.D.W. Va. · signal: see
See Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334 (3rd Cir.1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (CA PA 1958) and Rota v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & S.S.
Cited (see also) · C.D. Cal. · signal: compare
Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.25, at 851-53 (2d ed. 1970); compare Underwood v. Maloney, 256 F.2d 334, 337 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 864 , 79 S.Ct. 93 , 3 L.Ed.2d 97 (1958).
green Seideman v. Hamilton (1959)
Cited · E.D. Pa. · signal: see
See Underwood v. Maloney, supra. It has been suggested that the recent case of Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 , 79 S.Ct. 948 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 988 , might indicate a different result.