Henry L. Hayes v. Frank W. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Henry L. Hayes v. Frank W. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gage v. Somerset County (dcd, 2019-03-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gage v. Somerset County
D.D.C. · 2019 · confidence medium
Cir. Feb. 21, 2018) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a); Hayes v. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818, 818 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gage v. State of New Jersey
D.D.C. · 2019 · confidence medium
Cir. Feb. 21, 2018) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a); Hayes v. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818, 818 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gage v. Somerset County
D.D.C. · 2018 · confidence medium
Cir. Feb. 21, 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a); Hayes v. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818, 818 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ingersoll-Rand Company v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Carty v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 679 F.2d 1051 , 1066 (3d Cir.1982) (remanding to the district court for consideration whether transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 ); DSI Corp. v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 594 F.2d 177, 180 (9th Cir.1979) (same under former provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (c)); Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir.1963) (same); Hayes v. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818, 818 (D.C.Cir.1960) (same under provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cardwell v. Investor's Analysis, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.D.C. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Barr Rubber Products Co. v. Burlington *1398 Mills, Inc., 306 F.2d 268, 269 (D.C.Cir.1962); Hayes v. Livermont, 279 F.2d 818, 818 (D.C.Cir.1960); Chris Laganas Shoe Co. v. Watson, 221 F.2d 881, 882-83 (D.C.Cir.1955).
discussed Cited "see" BALLY GAMING, INC. v. Kappos
D.D.C. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
As Plaintiff correctly observes, “[I]f Ringo and Pearson had each assigned their interest to a single entity, such as a corporation or LLC, the multiple defendants would not be present, and jurisdiction where the single entity could be found would be appropriate.” Opp. at 4 n. 2; see Hayes, 279 F.2d at 818 .
discussed Cited "see" Bally Gaming, Inc. v. Kappos
D.D.C. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
As Plaintiff correctly observes, “[I]f Ringo and Pearson had each assigned their interest to a single entity, such as a corporation or LLC, the multiple defendants would not be present, and jurisdiction where the single entity could be found would be appropriate.” Opp. at 4 n.2; see Hayes, 279 F.2d at 818 .
Henry L. HAYES, Appellant,
v.
Frank W. LIVERMONT, Appellee
15385.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 26, 1960.
279 F.2d 818
Mr. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Joseph H. Heard, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Leo A. Rosetta, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Edgerton, Miller, Bazelon.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The District Court held that the term “adverse parties residing in a plurality of districts”, in 35 U.S.C. § 146, which concerns review of Patent Office decisions, is “not limited to plurality of defendants but may involve one plaintiff and one defendant if each resides in a separate district.” This was error. Coe v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 70 App.D.C. 2, 102 F.2d 270. Cf. Chris Laganas Shoe Co. v. Watson, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 221 F.2d 881. Since appellant resides in Michigan and was not served with process in the District of Columbia, this suit against him cannot be maintained here. The order denying his motion to dismiss is vacated.

But the District Court has authority to transfer the case to a district “in which it could have been brought”. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The case is therefore remanded to enable the District Court to consider whether transfer would be in the interest of justice. As the late Judge Parker said for the Fourth Circuit, “transfer is in accord with modem standards of procedure, the purpose of which is to get away from time-consuming and justice-defeating technicalities and secure an adjudication of the rights of the parties by as direct and as expeditious a route as possible.” Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen, 218 F.2d 514, 517. Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Inc. v. Knowles, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 274 F.2d 590.

In respect to transfer, Judge Bazelon concurs only in the result and only because of the authority of the Amerio case.

Vacated and remanded.