Legal Opinion
Hooper v. Wolfe
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided January 24, 2005No. 03-5853PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
John Hooper appeals the dismissal of his diversity action against his longtime real estate partner, David Wolfe, and various individuals and entities affiliated with Mr. Wolfe, for failure to join an entity known as PPM III Partnership, LP. Mr. Hooper argues that because PPM III was not a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint. Balancing the four factors to be considered in determining whether PPM III is an indispensable party under Rule 19(b), we reverse the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Carden v. Arkoma AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Francisco Pujol v. Shearson/american Express, Inc., Appeal of Ana Bonelli De PujolCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Curley v. Brignoli, Curley & Roberts AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Hb General Corp. Hb Limited Realty Corp. v. Manchester Partners, L.P., Defendant/third-Party v. H.B. Partners, L.P. And Vanderbilt Development Corporation, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Moss v. PrincipCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019
- Hooper v. WolfeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Sulak v. American Eurocopter Corp.District Court, N.D. Texas · 2012
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Collins-FullerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
- Brayden Michael Jones a Minor, by and Through His Mother and Duly Appointed v. Ic Bus, LLCCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2020
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.