ABATE ET AL.

v.

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …2 Cir. 1974, 495 F. 2d 448, 455-56 (objectors must show clear abuse of discretion in trial court’s approval of settlement); Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 3 Cir. 1974, 494 F. 2d 799, 803, cert. denied, Abate v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 419 U.S. 900, 95 S.Ct. 184, 42 L.Ed.2d 146 (1974) (settlement not unfair simply because many class members oppose it); Greenspun v. Bogan, 1 Cir. 1974, 492 F. 2d 375, 381 (only where one side is so clearly correct that offer in compromise becomes clearly unreaso…
• Dawson v. Pastrick, 600 F.2d 70 (7th Cir. 1979)
  …rt has an obligation when approving a settlement to set [*76] forth the reasoning which supports its conclusion in sufficient detail to make meaningful review possible, Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 494 F. 2d 799, 804 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 900, 95 S.Ct. 184, 42 L.Ed.2d 146 (1974), when an intervenor objects to a proposed settlement he also has an obligation. The very purpose of intervention is to permit the court to be apprised of the interests and objections of that party. As we noted in…
• United Cal. Bank v. THC Fin. Corp., 557 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …the ultimate question is whether the funding party “contributed ‘risk capital’ subject to the ‘entrepreneurial or managerial efforts’ of [others].” Id. at 1257. See also El Khadem v. Equity Securities Corp., 494 F. 2d 1224 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 900, 95 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed.2d 146 (1974); Hector v. Wiens, 533 F. 2d 429 (9th Cir. 1976); S.E.C. v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, 474 F. 2d 476 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821, 94 S.Ct. 117, 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973). For example, participations or not…