U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1946

United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided March 18, 1946

154 F.2d 291; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2048 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Morris Feldstein, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants., Marvin D. Power, of Pittsburgh, Pa., (Margiotti & Casey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee Marcus., J. Gregory Bruce, of Washington, D. C., (John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, and Charles F. Uhl, U. S. Atty., of Pittsburgh, Pa., Joseph M. Friedman, Chief, War Frauds Civil Section, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee United States.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Klein (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1964)
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Shubert (3d Cir. 1960)
Taxin v. Food Fair Stores, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1960)
Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1958)
Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1957)

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded by the appellants that if the federal rule relating to the release of joint tort-feasors be applied, the release of those defendants who contributed to the payment of a portion of the judgment, will not release the appellants, noncontributing defendants. The appellants contend that the Pennsylvania rule is applicable and that the release of one or more of the defendants, joint tort-feasors, will release all. Without conceding that the Pennsylvania rule is as the appellants assert, we entertain no doubt that the federal rule is applicable. The action at bar serves a federal purpose since it is a qui tam action brought pursuant to Sections 3490-3494 and 5438 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 231-235, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 80, 82-86. See People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 276, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 245, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239; Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 715, 65 S.Ct. 895. Accordingly the order of the District Court is affirmed.

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