Brent Colbert, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dymacol, Inc. Intellirisk Management Corp.

Third Circuit

Brent Colbert, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dymacol, Inc. Intellirisk Management Corp.

344 F.3d 334, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4531, 2003 WL 22232829

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2003

Docket01-4397

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 344 F.3d 334 (Brent Colbert, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dymacol, Inc. Intellirisk Management Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brent Colbert, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dymacol, Inc. Intellirisk Management Corp., 344 F.3d 334, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4531, 2003 WL 22232829 (3d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

BECKER, Chief Judge.

In view of the fact that Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e), see Advisory Committee Notes, and an appeal granted pursuant to § 1292(b) may be dismissed if improvidently granted, see e.g., Maryland Cas. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 128 F.3d 794, 798 (2d Cir.1997); Van Meter v. Barr, 976 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1992); Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Air Canada, 727 F.2d 253, 255 (2d Cir.1984); New York Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Blum, 678 F.2d 392, 393 (2d Cir.1982); Nickert v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir.1973); and in further view of the fact that the Court finds that the question presented by Appellants in their Application Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) for Permission to Appeal from the October 2, 2001 Order was inaccurate in that Appellee had not received all relief requested in his complaint, see Respondent’s Answer to Application for Permission to Appeal from the October 2, 2001 Order, and in that Appellee opposed the grant of permission to appeal on that ground;

It is ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed as improvidently granted and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

BECKER, Chief Judge.

In view of the fact that Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e), see Advisory Committee Notes, and an appeal granted pursuant to § 1292(b) may be dismissed if improvidently granted, see e.g., Maryland Cas. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 128 F.3d 794, 798 (2d Cir.1997); Van Meter v. Barr, 976 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1992); Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Air Canada, 727 F.2d 253, 255 (2d Cir.1984); New York Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Blum, 678 F.2d 392, 393 (2d Cir.1982); Nickert v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir.1973); and in further view of the fact that the Court finds that the question presented by Appellants in their Application Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) for Permission to Appeal from the October 2, 2001 Order was inaccurate in that Appellee had not received all relief requested in his complaint, see Respondent’s Answer to Application for Permission to Appeal from the October 2, 2001 Order, and in that Appellee opposed the grant of permission to appeal on that ground;

It is ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed as improvidently granted and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F.3d 334, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4531, 2003 WL 22232829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brent-colbert-on-behalf-of-himself-and-all-others-similarly-situated-v-ca3-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack