Ortha H. v. Abraham Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

69 F.R.D. 117
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided November 13, 1975·No. Civ. A. No. 72-2269·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

NEWCOMER, District Judge.

And now, to wit, this 13th day of November, 1975, it is hereby Ordered that the memorandum opinion filed by this Court on October 11, 1974, and reported at 65 F.R.D. 379 (1974), is amended as follows:

The word “not” shall be added as the fourth word in the last sentence in column one on 65 F.R.D. at 385, so that it now reads,

“But we do not feel the simple fact that the sums which plaintiffs’ counsel are advancing plaintiffs to meet the admittedly high costs of litigation may greatly exceed the resources of the plaintiffs should be the basis of an argument that a class should not be declared.”

And it is so ordered.

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

Ortha H. v. Abraham Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 69 F.R.D. 117 (E.D. Pa. 1975).

69 F.R.D. 117 (Ortha H. v. Abraham Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roseman v. Sports & Recreation
165 F.R.D. 108 (M.D. Florida, 1996)
Ardrey v. Federal Kemper Insurance
142 F.R.D. 105 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1992)
Ferraro v. General Motors Corp.
105 F.R.D. 429 (D. New Jersey, 1984)
Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
451 A.2d 451 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
In re Alcoholic Beverages Litigation
95 F.R.D. 321 (E.D. New York, 1982)
Brame v. Ray Bills Finance Corp.
85 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. New York, 1979)
Kamens v. Horizon Corp.
81 F.R.D. 444 (S.D. New York, 1979)