TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Madison Shipping Corporation v. National Maritime Union

Madison Shipping Corporation v. National Maritime Union, Seafarers International Union of North America, International Maritime Workers Union, Shannon J. Wall, James L. Martin, Joseph Curran, Joseph Algina, Konstantions Gavriel, John Ionnis Kaklaminis, Adamantios Argyroudis, George Mandariakas, Antonios Lavds, and Konstantinos Karagiannis

Madison Shipping Corp. v. Nat'l Mar. Union, 273 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 22, 1960
Docket
No. 13120_1
Citations
273 F.2d 95546 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 30101960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533

Opinion

273 F.2d 955

MADISON SHIPPING CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, Seafarers International Union of North America, International Maritime Workers Union, Shannon J. Wall, James L. Martin, Joseph Curran, Joseph Algina, Konstantions Gavriel, John Ionnis Kaklaminis, Adamantios Argyroudis, George Mandariakas, Antonios Lavds, and Konstantinos Karagiannis, Appellants.

No. 13120.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Jan. 21, 1960. Decided Jan. 22, 1960.

Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Plaintiffs in this case have moved to dismiss an appeal by the defendants from an order of the District Court forbidding the defendants from doing certain acts pending that Court's hearing on the merits the grounds for dismissal of the appeal are that the order is in its nature a temporary restraining order and, therefore, not subject to appeal. The question is not at all free from difficulty and the Court is divided. A majority of us, however, believe that the order made is in the nature of a temporary restraining order. It does not settle the merits of the larger claim which the plaintiffs have and it is only to be continued until the District Court can have hearing on the merits and render a decision.

2

The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed as premature leaving the Court without jurisdiction.

3

KALODNER, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

4

The District Court's restraining order here has a 'final and irreparable effect on the rights of the parties' and accordingly is appealable. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 1949, 337 U.S. 541, 545 , 69 S.Ct. 1221 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 ; Morganstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corporation, 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 160, 162 ; Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 400, 402 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1960: 119602026peak 1960 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 8,958
Maxwell v. Enter. Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 131 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1942) 54
Morgenstern Chem. Co. v. Schering Corp., 181 F.2d 160 (3d Cir. 1950) 37

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list