FAY, ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL.

v.

SWICKER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 (3d Cir. 1970)
  …le, should be decided on the merits.17 Here, since judgment has been entered on the motion to dismiss, appellant no longer has the right to amend his complaint as of course. Kelly v. Delaware River Joint Comm., 187 F. 2d 93 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 812, 72 S.Ct. 25, 96 L.Ed. 614 (1950) 18 However, under Rule 15(a), the district court is enjoined to “freely” permit amendment as a matter of discretion. We recognize that since the court below believed that the instant complaint was barred by collater…
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F.2d 725 (2d Cir. 1954)
  …the production of the document; Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322; Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451; N. L. R. B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., 2 Cir., 185 F. 2d 285, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 812, 72 S.Ct. 25, 96 L.Ed. 614; Cleary Bros. v. Christie Scow Corp., 2 Cir., 176 F. 2d 370; and the demand seems to have been a mere shot in the dark. Needlessly to require the disclosure of such confidential data would serve no useful purpose, and the…
• In re Mercury Constr. Corp. v. The Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., 656 F.2d 933 (4th Cir. 1981)
  …include Pullman, Inc. v. Phoenix Steel Corp., 304 A. 2d 334 (Del.Super.1973); Standard Co. of New Orleans v. Elliott Const. Co., 363 So. 2d 671 (La. 1978); and Wilson & Co. v. Fremont Cake & Meal Co., 153 Neb. 160, 43 N.W. 2d 657 (1950), cert. den. 342 U.S. 812, 72 S.Ct. 25, 96 L.Ed. 614 (1951). The position of North Carolina is unclear. In the two decisions cited by the majority, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply to the contracts in question because…