Milbert v. Bison Laboratories
Decision Date | 28 October 1958 |
Parties | Herbert MILBERT v. BISON LABORATORIES, Inc., and The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Suto, Power, Goldstein & Walsh, Marvin D. Power, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Meyer, Darragh, Buckler & McDonnell, Kim Darragh, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Bison.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
Bison Laboratories, Inc., one of the defendants in a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has made application to this court for permission to appeal from the order of that court entered September 24, 1958, refusing its motion to quash the service of summons and dismiss the action. The application is stated to be made under section 1292(b) of title 28 United States Code, as added by the Act of September 2, 1958, Public Law 85-919, 72 Stat. 1770, which provides as follows:
It is quite apparent from the legislative history of the Act of September 2, 1958 that Congress intended that section 1292(b) should be sparingly applied. It is to be used only in exceptional cases where an intermediate appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation and is not intended to open the floodgates to a vast number of appeals from interlocutory orders in ordinary litigation. Both the district judge and the court of appeals are to exercise independent judgment in each case and are not to act routinely. Thus in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the bill it is stated:
And in the report made on the bill by the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate it is said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Asbestos Workers Medical v. Philip Morris, 98 CV 1492.
...judge and the court of appeals are to exercise independent judgment in each case and are not to act routinely." Milbert v. Bison Lab., Inc., 260 F.2d 431, 433 (3d Cir.1958) (emphasis The court of appeals for the Second Circuit has echoed the need for district court judges to use discretion ......
-
Braden v. University of Pittsburgh, 75-1657
...(per curiam).16 366 F.Supp. 1221 (S.D.N.Y.1973).17 Cf. Borskey v. American Pad & Textile Co., 296 F.2d 894, 895 (5th Cir. 1961).18 260 F.2d 431 (3d Cir. 1958).19 Notes of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rule 5, quoted in 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 205.02(2), at 1103 (1975). See 9 Moore's ......
-
Forsyth v. Kleindienst, Civ. A. No. 72-1920.
...... See Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc., 260 F.2d 431, 433 (3d Cir.1958) (en banc). The critical issue in each ......
-
Kolbeck v. General Motors Corp., Civ. A. No. 88-0714.
...U.S. 463, 475, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2461, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (discussing the legislative history of § 1292(b)); Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, 260 F.2d 431, 433-35 (3d Cir.1958). The issues raised by GM's motion for partial summary judgment in this lawsuit concern important areas of state and ......