Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 12292.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BIGGS, , and GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit |
| Citation | 252 F.2d 452 |
| Parties | Nicola PANICHELLA v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant (Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., a Corporation). |
| Docket Number | No. 12292.,12292. |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1958 |
252 F.2d 452 (1958)
Nicola PANICHELLA
v.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant (Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., a Corporation).
No. 12292.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued December 17, 1957.
Decided February 12, 1958.
John David Rhodes, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
J. Lawrence McBride, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
HASTIE, Circuit Judge.
On this appeal we find it appropriate to consider a procedural question raised by the election of the trial judge to enter an order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.,1 making the disposition of a third-party claim immediately appealable while the principal claim to which that third-party claim is incidental remains undecided.
The original plaintiff, Nicola Panichella, who is not a party to this appeal, sued his employer, the Pennsylvania Railroad, for negligent injury under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U. S.C.A. § 51 et seq. Panichella claimed that an injurious fall on a sidewalk abutting premises of Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., had been caused, in whole or
The district court dealt with both motions in a single opinion ruling that this release of Warner "and all other persons * * * from any and all claims" growing out of the accident did not bar Panichella's F.E.L.A. claim arising out of the accident in question against the Railroad. At the same time, the court ruled that the release did bar claims against Warner for contribution as well as claims charging Warner with primary liability. Accordingly, the motion of the Railroad for summary judgment was denied and the primary claim of Panichella against the Railroad now awaits trial in the district court. Warner, however, was granted summary judgment relieving it of any liability over on the Railroad's third-party claim against it.
Thereafter, acting under Rule 54(b), the district court made "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay" in entering forthwith an appealable final judgment, and undertook to enter such a judgment, rather than leaving the question of liability over for appellate review with all other contested matters after trial disposition of the entire litigation.
The discretion which Rule 54(b) confers upon a trial judge is not absolute. "Any abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., Nos. 75-1666
...overall policy against piecemeal appeals against whatever exigencies the case at hand may present. . . ." Panichella v. Pennsylvania RR., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir. In this case we have the benefit of the district court's opinion explaining the basis for its particular exercise of discretio......
-
Wash. Elec. Co-op. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec., Civ. No. 89-94
...orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel.'") (quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir.1958)), aff'd 622 F.2d 629 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1013, 101 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed.2d 471 (1980). Thus, there must be a show......
-
Geier v. Hamer Enterprises, Inc., No. 1-89-0420
...particularly with respect to the certification of third-party actions for appeal. (See Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. (3d Cir.1958), 252 F.2d 452, 454.) The courts consider various [226 Ill.App.3d 383] factors in determining whether the certification for appeal of a portion of a case i......
-
Cullen v. Margiotta, Nos. 1468-1472
...this Rule confers upon the trial judge should be used only "in the infrequent harsh case"....' " (quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir.1958)). There are few guidelines as to when entry of the partial judgment should be ordered but several clearcut strictures as......
-
Wash. Elec. Co-op. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec., Civ. No. 89-94
...orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel.'") (quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir.1958)), aff'd 622 F.2d 629 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1013, 101 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed.2d 471 (1980). Thus, there must be a show......
-
Geier v. Hamer Enterprises, Inc., No. 1-89-0420
...particularly with respect to the certification of third-party actions for appeal. (See Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. (3d Cir.1958), 252 F.2d 452, 454.) The courts consider various [226 Ill.App.3d 383] factors in determining whether the certification for appeal of a portion of a case i......
-
Cullen v. Margiotta, Nos. 1468-1472
...this Rule confers upon the trial judge should be used only "in the infrequent harsh case"....' " (quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir.1958)). There are few guidelines as to when entry of the partial judgment should be ordered but several clearcut strictures as......
-
Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., Nos. 75-1666
...overall policy against piecemeal appeals against whatever exigencies the case at hand may present. . . ." Panichella v. Pennsylvania RR., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir. In this case we have the benefit of the district court's opinion explaining the basis for its particular exercise of discretio......