In re GAF Corp.

First Circuit

In re GAF Corp.

416 F.2d 1252

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 1969

DocketNo. 7379

StatusPublished

This text of 416 F.2d 1252 (In re GAF Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re GAF Corp., 416 F.2d 1252 (1st Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for mandamus by which petitioner seeks review of an order refusing a transfer to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The action appears to be an uncomplicated design patent case; the transfer is sought for the convenience of witnesses.

Petitioner makes a respectable showing. Nonetheless, we do not regard this an exceptional ease, warranting what is customarily characterized as extraordinary relief. The existence of interlocutory appeal procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of itself emphasizes the heavy burden on one who seeks mandamus on matters that come within the possible ambit of that statute.

The petition is denied. We do not determine the merits of petitioner’s claim. If it does reach us by ordinary process it will be open, if we find the district court committed error in refusing transfer, to consider compensation by way of reimbursement for the expense of bringing essential witnesses to Boston even though, on the ultimate issues, defendant does not prevail.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for mandamus by which petitioner seeks review of an order refusing a transfer to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The action appears to be an uncomplicated design patent case; the transfer is sought for the convenience of witnesses.

Petitioner makes a respectable showing. Nonetheless, we do not regard this an exceptional ease, warranting what is customarily characterized as extraordinary relief. The existence of interlocutory appeal procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of itself emphasizes the heavy burden on one who seeks mandamus on matters that come within the possible ambit of that statute.

The petition is denied. We do not determine the merits of petitioner’s claim. If it does reach us by ordinary process it will be open, if we find the district court committed error in refusing transfer, to consider compensation by way of reimbursement for the expense of bringing essential witnesses to Boston even though, on the ultimate issues, defendant does not prevail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F.2d 1252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gaf-corp-ca1-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack