Marsh Investment Corporation v. John Langford, Pontchartrain State Bank v. William M. Justice, Clerk of Court, Etc.
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Bridges v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. (La. Ct. App. 2010)
- South Louisiana Bank v. Williams (La. Ct. App. 1991)
- Elkhart Cooperative Equity Exchange v. Day (District Court, D. Kansas 1989)
- Tommy Duane Thomas, Jr. And Marilyn Kay Terrell, His Parent and Guardian, and United States of America v. Gerald Shelton and Barbara Shelton (7th Cir. 1984)
- Soper v. Kahn (District Court, D. Maryland 1983)
- Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Morris (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 2015)
- Monlezun v. Lyon Interests, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 2011)
- Lee J. Monlezun, M.D. v. Lyon Interests, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 2011)
- Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC v. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. (District Court, S.D. Texas 2010)
- Bridges v. HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORPORATION (La. Ct. App. 2008)
- Bridges v. X Communications, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 2003)
- First National Bank v. Curry (6th Cir. 2002)
- Wormley v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (District Court, E.D. Texas 1994)
- South Louisiana Bank v. Williams (La. Ct. App. 1991)
- Patient Care, Inc. v. Freeman (District Court, D. New Jersey 1991)
- State Bank & Trust Co. v. Boat \D.J. Griffin\"" (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1991)
- Sunny Acres Skilled Nursing v. Williams (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1990)
- In re Wilson Industries, Inc. (5th Cir. 1989)
- Poisson v. Maintenance Pace Setters, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1988)
- Murjani v. Allstate Insurance (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 1988)
- Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 1988)
- Gulf States Exploration Co. v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (In re Manville Forest Products Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1988)
- Pannell v. Associated Press (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1988)
- Conn. Sav. Bank v. SAVERS FEDERAL SAV. & LOAN ASS'N (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1987)
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
MARSH INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John LANGFORD, Defendant.
PONTCHARTRAIN STATE BANK, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
William M. JUSTICE, Clerk of Court, Etc., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 80-3608.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Unit A
Aug. 6, 1981.
Robert C. Lowe, Annabelle H. Walker, Max Nathan, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.
Steeg & O'Connor, Robert M. Steeg, Moise S. Steeg, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Marsh Inv. Corp.
Matt J. Farley, New Orleans, La., for Underwriters.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before CHARLES CLARK, TATE and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The summary judgment in favor of the Marsh Investment Corporation is AFFIRMED on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion, 490 F.Supp. 1320, entered June 3, 1980, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 79-2020, Section "E".
The district court correctly concluded that the Pontchartrain State Bank's third-party demand against the underwriters was a "separate and independent" cause of action that was joined with non-removable actions, so that the entire case filed in state court was properly removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c); Carl Heck Engineers, Inc. v. Lafourche Parish Police Jury, 622 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1980). We are of the further opinion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not remanding the non-removal actions at the time remand was requested, for the reasons more fully stated in the district court's opinion of July 30, 1980. See Marsh Investment Corporation v. Langford, 494 F.Supp. 344 (E.D.La. 1980).1 Nor can we find any abuse of discretion in the district court's grant of Rule 54(b) certification in the entry of the summary judgment. See Curtis-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company, 446 U.S. 1, 9, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1466-67, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court judgment.
AFFIRMED.
CHARLES CLARK, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur in the panel's affirmance of the judgment of the district court and in all of the opinion except the second sentence of footnote 1. Since we are unanimous that it is unnecessary to pass upon the issue of whether this was a "final judgment" within the meaning of 22 U.S.C. § 1447(c), I do not.
We do not pass upon the timeliness of the motion for remand, since we find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion, if timely. Although a majority of the panel further agree with the additional conclusion of the district court that the final judgment on the summary judgment claim entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) was a "final judgment" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) so that the motion to remand as improvidently ruled was not timely, not being "before final judgment" it is unnecessary to pass upon this issue when, in any event, the refusal to remand was proper
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.