Mario Fantecchi v. Richard E. Gross and Peggy Lou Gross

Third Circuit

Mario Fantecchi v. Richard E. Gross and Peggy Lou Gross

255 F.2d 299, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4199

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1958

Docket12539_1

StatusPublished

This text of 255 F.2d 299 (Mario Fantecchi v. Richard E. Gross and Peggy Lou Gross) 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

Mario Fantecchi v. Richard E. Gross and Peggy Lou Gross, 255 F.2d 299, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4199 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an action for damages resulting from a motor vehicle collision, from an order of the district court refusing to enjoin the prosecution by the defendants against the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, of a suit for damages growing out of the same accident. It was the plaintiff’s contention that this should have been asserted as a compulsory counter-claim in the present action in the district court. When the appeal was called for argument it was stated at the bar of this court that the action in the state court had terminated in a decision by a board of arbitrators in favor of the present plaintiff (defendant in that action) and that no appeal would be taken. It follows that this appeal is now moot.

The appeal will accordingly be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an action for damages resulting from a motor vehicle collision, from an order of the district court refusing to enjoin the prosecution by the defendants against the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, of a suit for damages growing out of the same accident. It was the plaintiff’s contention that this should have been asserted as a compulsory counter-claim in the present action in the district court. When the appeal was called for argument it was stated at the bar of this court that the action in the state court had terminated in a decision by a board of arbitrators in favor of the present plaintiff (defendant in that action) and that no appeal would be taken. It follows that this appeal is now moot.

The appeal will accordingly be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F.2d 299, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mario-fantecchi-v-richard-e-gross-and-peggy-lou-gross-ca3-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack