BUFFALO DRY DOCK CO.

v.

SALKELD ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Henson v. Columbus Bank & Tr. Co., 651 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …l of diversity case on limitations grounds is without prejudice to bringing the action in another jurisdiction); Stokke v. Southern Pacific Co., 169 F. 2d 42 (10th Cir. 1948); Warner v. Buffalo Drydock Co., 67 F. 2d 540 (2d Cir. 1933), cert. denied, 291 U.S. 678, 54 S.Ct. 529, 78 L.Ed. 1066 (1934);3 Cummings [*325] v. Cowan, 390 F.Supp. 1251, 1255 (N.D.Miss. 1975). See also IB Moore’s Federal Practice II 0.409[6] (2d ed. 1965). The Restatement of Judgments provides a clear statement of this principle: [I]…
• Sack v. LOW, 478 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …ted by the laws of the state shall apply. . I. Prior to the Bertha Building decision, the law in this circuit, as set out by Judge A. N. Hand for our court’s “first team” in Warner v. Buffalo Drydock Co., 67 F. 2d 540 (2 Cir. 1933), cert. denied, 291 U.S. 678, 54 S.Ct. 529, 78 L.Ed. 1066 (1934), was that dismissal of a complaint in another forum on the ground that the statute of limitations had run was not an adjudication on the merits and did not bar a subsequent action on the same claim here. The court…
• Gen. Chem. Co. v. Standard Wholesale Phosphate & Acid Works, Inc., 77 F.2d 230 (4th Cir. 1935)
  …, 1933, affirmed the decree of the District Court [see 67 F.(2d) 133], A petition for rehearing was denied on October 30, 1933; and a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, filed on January 30,1934, [*231] was denied on March 5, 1934. 291 U. S. 678, 54 S. Ct. 529, 78 L. Ed. 1066. No express mention of claim 7 was made in either of these petitions which were directed to the consideration of the scope of the claims, but no abandonment of claim 7 or acceptance of the adverse decisions thereon wa…