Edward F. Quirke and Sylvia Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Defendant-Appellee-Appellant

Second Circuit

Edward F. Quirke and Sylvia Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Defendant-Appellee-Appellant

367 F.2d 864

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1966

Docket68, Docket 30496

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 367 F.2d 864 (Edward F. Quirke and Sylvia Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Defendant-Appellee-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward F. Quirke and Sylvia Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, 367 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by common shareholders of defendant Norfolk and Western Railway Company for relief under Sections 14 and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. §§ 78n and 78aa, based on an alleged misleading proxy statement issued in connection with a meeting of defendant’s stockholders, plaintiffs and defendant moved for summary judgment. The court, Charles M. Metzner, Judge, denied both motions, holding that a material issue of fact existed and that the case was not ripe for summary judgment in favor of either party.

On argument, the court raised the question of appellate jurisdiction, since no final judgment has yet entered, and it questioned the soundness of decisions upholding jurisdiction in similar cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as appeals from denial of interlocutory injunctions. The question has now been resolved by the court en banc in Chappell & Co., Inc. et al. v. Frankel, 367 F.2d 197 (2d Cir., Oct. 13, 1966) unanimously holding that appellate jurisdiction is lacking.

The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by common shareholders of defendant Norfolk and Western Railway Company for relief under Sections 14 and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. §§ 78n and 78aa, based on an alleged misleading proxy statement issued in connection with a meeting of defendant’s stockholders, plaintiffs and defendant moved for summary judgment. The court, Charles M. Metzner, Judge, denied both motions, holding that a material issue of fact existed and that the case was not ripe for summary judgment in favor of either party.

On argument, the court raised the question of appellate jurisdiction, since no final judgment has yet entered, and it questioned the soundness of decisions upholding jurisdiction in similar cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as appeals from denial of interlocutory injunctions. The question has now been resolved by the court en banc in Chappell & Co., Inc. et al. v. Frankel, 367 F.2d 197 (2d Cir., Oct. 13, 1966) unanimously holding that appellate jurisdiction is lacking.

The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-f-quirke-and-sylvia-martin-plaintiffs-appellants-appellees-v-ca2-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack