holding that a discovery sanctions order was appealable because prompt review was necessary to protect funds that would be subject to the claims of an intervening party
Summary of this case from Riverhead Sav. Bk. v. Nat Mortg. Equity Corp.No. 499.
October 26, 1970, OCTOBER TERM, 1970.
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 426 F. 2d 850.
holding that a discovery sanctions order was appealable because prompt review was necessary to protect funds that would be subject to the claims of an intervening party
Summary of this case from Riverhead Sav. Bk. v. Nat Mortg. Equity Corp.holding that District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying, as untimely made, a motion to join a party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, and noting that court likewise would not have erred if motion had been made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19
Summary of this case from Sablan v. Cabrerafinding that a motion to intervene filed more than a year after the action was commenced was timely when there had been no legally significant proceedings other than the completion of discovery
Summary of this case from Meadors v. Fiberglassupholding restriction on process patent which granted one licensee exclusive right to use process on hobby horses
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.HFull title:GRINNELL CORP. et al. v. RUSS TOGS, INC., et al
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 26, 1970
Nevertheless, where, as here, intervention as a matter of right is sought, courts have been more liberal in…
U.S. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.HBut courts have occasionally distinguished General Talking Pictures and held the restraint illegal where they…