Home/Second Circuit/General Time Corp. v. Padua Alarm Systems, Inc.

General Time Corp. v. Padua Alarm Systems, Inc.

199 F.2d 351, 94 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 350, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4369
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedSeptember 17, 1952
Docket217, Docket 22281
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 199 F.2d 351 (General Time Corp. v. Padua Alarm Systems, Inc.) 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
General Time Corp. v. Padua Alarm Systems, Inc., 199 F.2d 351, 94 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 350, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4369 (2d Cir. 1952).

Opinions

tjttp r*rn?TAi\/r PER CURIAM.

Though the court is divided in its views nonetheless there is sufficient agree-ment among its members to permit the dis-position of the case without remand. Judge CHASE and Judge CLARK, though of different opinions as to the merits of the contraversy> agree that the court has jurisdictlonto declde the case on its merits and that the Provisions of Rule 54(b), Fed.Rules Civ. Proc-> 28 U-S-C> relatlnS to judgment upon multiple claims are inapplicable. Judge BIGGS> while voting with Judge CLARK on ^ ments> 13 of the Vlew ^ the aourt *s without power to entertain the appeal be-cause he thinks that a claim within the purview of Rule 54(b)> verted by Padua, re-mams undisposed of. The positions of the Judges appear more fully m their respecBve °pini°ns

The net result is that a majority of the court (Judge CHASE and Judge CLARK) agree that the court possesses the power to adjudicate the controversy. A majority of the court (Judge BIGGS and Judge CLARK) agree that the decision on the merits should be in favor of Parissi. Ac-cordingly the judgment is reversed with the direction to the court below to enter judgment in favor of Parissi as indicated in Judge CLARK’S opinion,

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

Related

Ford Motor Co. v. Transport Indemnity Co.
795 F.2d 538 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)
Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff/counter-Defendant/appellee v. Transport Indemnity Company, Defendant/counter-Plaintiff/appellant v. Automobile Transport, Inc., Alexander Andrews, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Automobile Transport, Inc., Additional on Counterclaim/appellees. (84-1735). In Re Automobile Transport, Inc., Debtor, Alexander G. Andrews, Plaintiff-Trustee for Automobile Transport, Inc., Plaintiff/counter-Defendant/appellee v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant/counter-Plaintiff/appellee. (85-1341)
795 F.2d 538 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)
Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,044 Mid City Management Corp. v. Loewi Realty Corporation
643 F.2d 386 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
J.B.C. Lockwood, Jr., Successor to Sanford M. Sage, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Emerald Properties, Inc. v. The Wolf Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
629 F.2d 603 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Jones v. VEFO Inc.
609 F.2d 409 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Lloyd Wescott v. Impresas Armadoras, S.A. Panama v. Brady Hamilton Stevedore Co., Intervenor-Appellee
564 F.2d 875 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
Luithle v. Taverna
214 N.W.2d 117 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1973)
Central-Southwest Dairy Cooperative v. American Bank of Commerce
432 P.2d 820 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)
McDermott v. Commissioner
41 T.C. 50 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Joseph E. Bennett Co., Inc. v. Trio Industries, Inc.
306 F.2d 546 (First Circuit, 1962)
Reddi-Wip, Inc. v. Lemay Valve Company
354 S.W.2d 913 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
Herman Howze v. Arrow Transportation Company and Zurich Insurance Company
280 F.2d 403 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
Cahill v. Regan
4 A.D.2d 328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Cahill v. Regan
2 Misc. 2d 455 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)
Rieser v. Baltimore Ohio Railroad Company
224 F.2d 198 (Second Circuit, 1955)
Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
224 F.2d 198 (Second Circuit, 1955)
Telechron, Inc. v. Parissi
120 F. Supp. 235 (N.D. New York, 1954)
General Time Corp. v. Padua Alarm Systems, Inc.
199 F.2d 351 (Second Circuit, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 F.2d 351, 94 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 350, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-time-corp-v-padua-alarm-systems-inc-ca2-1952.