U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1943

Singer v. General Motors Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided June 11, 1943 · Hand, Chase

136 F.2d 905; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3167 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Charles H. Kelby and Joseph Nemerov, both of New York City, (Edward A. Rothenberg and Mortimer A. Shapiro, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants., Milton Pollack and Unger & Pollack, all of New York City, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Goldberger v. Integrated Resources (2d Cir. 2000)
Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc. (2d Cir. 2000)
Beller & Keller v. Joseph Tyler, and Tyrone Kindor (2d Cir. 1997)
Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1973)
Newman v. Stein (District Court, S.D. New York 1973)
Nanfito v. TEKSEED HYBRID COMPANY (United States District Court, Nebraska 1972)
Newmark v. RKO General, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
John W. Preston, Jr., Personally and as of the Estate of John W. Preston, Deceased, Oliver O. Clark and David D. Sallee v. United States (9th Cir. 1960)
Jules E. Angoff v. Bernard Goldfine, Harold Brown v. Bernard Goldfine (1st Cir. 1959)
Subin v. Goldsmith (2d Cir. 1955)
Subin v. Goldsmith (2d Cir. 1955)
Birnbaum v. Birrell (District Court, S.D. New York 1955)
State Ex Rel. Weede v. Bechtel (Iowa 1952)
Certain-Teed Products Corporation v. Topping (2d Cir. 1948)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Nemerov, filed two independent actions similar to that at bar, but they were enjoined almost at once, even before he could serve all the defendants named. Pie did, and could do, nothing thereafter to prosecute these actions, and his only possible contributions to the action at bar were: first, his idea of basing recovery, not upon the unlawfulness of the “bonus plan”, but upon the improperly large base on which percentages were computed; and second, his joining certain defendants who contributed to the settlement. The attack upon the base turned out, he asserts, to be the source of the largest part of the recovery; apparently it is true that the action at bar was originally based only upon the notion that the plan was unlawful; and we shall assume arguendo that the attorneys in charge of it got their suggestion from Nemerov’s complaint. However, there was nothing original in the notion, and it is unlikely that, as the action progressed, it should not have occurred to those in charge as a ground of recovery. Be that as it may, the district judge has awarded $10,000 for this service, and we cannot say that that was so little as to make its allowance an abuse of discretion.

The second supposititious service: making defendants in the two actions, three persons who were not named in the action at bar, and who eventually contributed to the settlement, deserves no further award. *906 Nemerov never served them, as we have said, and their mere mention in the summons and complaint was not a substantial contribution.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.