PIOCHE MINES CONSOLIDATED, INC., PIOCHE MINES COMPANY AND JOHN JANNEY, PETITIONERS,
v.
HON. ROGER T. FOLEY, AS CHIEF JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, AND THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that a writ of mandate should issue to compel the dismissal of an amended supplemental complaint.
Petitioners sought to compel dismissal of an amended supplemental complaint filed by Fidelity after prior appeals. The trial judge postponed ruling on…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, hereafter generally referred to as Pioche, seek mandate to compel the respondent court and judge to dismiss an “amended supplemental complaint,” which was filed by Fidelity (plaintiff below and intervener here) subsequent to our decisions and mandates on prior appeals in this case. The district judge refused to rule on Pioche’s motion to dismiss the aforesaid amended supplemental complaint. Instead, he postponed action thereon until the time of trial.
Our opinions and orders on the prior appearances here of the controversy between Fidelity and Pioche are published in Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co., 191 F. 2d 399; 202 F. 2d 944; and 206 F. 2d 336. For an adequate understanding of what the case is about it is essential that the reader consult those opinions and rulings.
In the earliest of them we held that the supplemental complaint there interposed was tantamount to an amendment of the original complaint, apfl that the original complaint became merged therein. Our second opinion ordered the dismissal of the supplemental complaint because of the absence of indispensable parties. No leave was given to join indispensable parties. Our mandate commanded that “proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the opinion and judgment of this court.” Clearly, we intended that Fidelity file no more complaints, however, denominated, in this action.
A writ of mandate will issue directing respondent court and judge to dismiss the amended supplemental complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Beverly Hills Bancorp v. R.W. Hine, 752 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1984)
-
Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964)
-
Hung Hy Nguyen dba Mekong Mkt. v. United States, 792 F.2d 1500 (9th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co., 206 F.2d 336 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co., 202 F.2d 944 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co., 191 F.2d 399 (9th Cir. 1951)