Leighton v. One William Street Fund, Inc.

Second Circuit

Leighton v. One William Street Fund, Inc.

404 F.2d 351, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1968

DocketNo. 189, Docket 32508

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 404 F.2d 351 (Leighton v. One William Street Fund, 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

Leighton v. One William Street Fund, Inc., 404 F.2d 351, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569 (2d Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff in this stockholder’s derivative action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York appeals from an order of Judge Tyler disposing of various motions. In one portion of the order the judge denied plaintiff’s application — in fact his third, see 343 F.2d 565 (2 Cir. 1965) for the first — for a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a receiver. We affirm this as well within the discretion of the district court. In other portions of the order the judge struck an “Amended Partial Complaint” as not complying “with either the letter or the spirit” of [352]*352the leave given nearly three years before, and denied leave to serve and file a proposed supplemental complaint. Since portions of plaintiff’s complaint remain pending and undetermined, we dismiss the appeal from this part of the order for want of appellate jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff in this stockholder’s derivative action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York appeals from an order of Judge Tyler disposing of various motions. In one portion of the order the judge denied plaintiff’s application — in fact his third, see 343 F.2d 565 (2 Cir. 1965) for the first — for a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a receiver. We affirm this as well within the discretion of the district court. In other portions of the order the judge struck an “Amended Partial Complaint” as not complying “with either the letter or the spirit” of [352]*352the leave given nearly three years before, and denied leave to serve and file a proposed supplemental complaint. Since portions of plaintiff’s complaint remain pending and undetermined, we dismiss the appeal from this part of the order for want of appellate jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 F.2d 351, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leighton-v-one-william-street-fund-inc-ca2-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack