Madison Shipping Corp. v. National Maritime Union

Third Circuit

Madison Shipping Corp. v. National Maritime Union

273 F.2d 955, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3010, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1960

DocketNo. 13120

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 F.2d 955 (Madison Shipping Corp. v. National Maritime Union) 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

Madison Shipping Corp. v. National Maritime Union, 273 F.2d 955, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3010, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in this case have moved to dismiss an appeal by the defendants from an order of the District Court forbidding the defendants from doing certain acts pending that Court’s hearing on the merits. The grounds for dismissal of the appeal are that the order is in its nature a temporary restraining order and, therefore, not subject to appeal. The question is not at all free from difficulty and the Court is divided. A majority of us, however, believe that the order made is in the nature of a temporary restraining order. It does not settle the merits of the larger claim which the plaintiffs have and it is only to be continued until the District Court can have hearing on the merits and render a decision.

The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed as premature leaving the Court without jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in this case have moved to dismiss an appeal by the defendants from an order of the District Court forbidding the defendants from doing certain acts pending that Court’s hearing on the merits. The grounds for dismissal of the appeal are that the order is in its nature a temporary restraining order and, therefore, not subject to appeal. The question is not at all free from difficulty and the Court is divided. A majority of us, however, believe that the order made is in the nature of a temporary restraining order. It does not settle the merits of the larger claim which the plaintiffs have and it is only to be continued until the District Court can have hearing on the merits and render a decision.

The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed as premature leaving the Court without jurisdiction.

United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A. C. Allyn and Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc., Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., the Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke & Co., Helene Glenmore v. John I. Ahern

276 F.2d 525 (Second Circuit, 1960)

Madison Shipping Corporation v. National Maritime Union

273 F.2d 955 (Third Circuit, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 F.2d 955, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3010, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-shipping-corp-v-national-maritime-union-ca3-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack