IN RE PITTSBURGH RYS. CO. SULLIVAN ET AL.
v.
PHILADELPHIA CO. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Orders of reference to a Special Master, which do not adjudicate rights or claims but merely direct the Special Master to proceed, are not immediately appealable.
The District Court issued two orders of reference directing a Special Master to proceed with a case. The orders did not adjudicate any rights or claim…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Master cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appeal here raises the question of the legal correctness of two orders of reference made by the District 'Court in the above entitled case. The orders complained of adjudicated no rights or claims but directed the Special Master to proceed and report.
We think it doubtful whether the orders present anything more than a procedural direction by the Court to its Special Master which is not a matter on which an appeal may be based. Cf. In re Hotel Governor Clinton, Inc., 2 Cir., 1939, 107 F. 2d 398; In re Utilities Power & Light Corporation, 8 Cir., 1937, 90 F. 2d 798, 800.
But assuming the orders are ones which may be appealed we think the direction to the Special Master was well within the Court’s discretion. We have heretofore admonished all parties concerned in this cause that the reorganization should proceed with all the celerity possible. The orders of reference by the Court were made in pursuance of that policy. The District Court has the initial responsibility for attaining a result, in which it must have considerable elasticity as to means and procedures. The orders made here do not stretch that elasticity beyond the legal limit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050 (3d Cir. 1981)
-
In re W. F. Breuss, Inc., 586 F.2d 983 (3d Cir. 1978)
-
In re Am. Bantam CAR Co., 193 F.2d 616 (3d Cir. 1952)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Hotel Governor Clinton, 107 F.2d 398 (2d Cir. 1939)
- In re Utils. Power & Light Corp. v. Utils. Power & Light Corp., 90 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1937)