Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Hackney v. Newman Memorial Hospital, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided May 16, 1980No. 78-1981Published
1ConcurrenceSeth, Chief Judge
I concur with the conclusion that it has not been shown that plaintiff is a straw party, but would like to emphasize other aspects of the case.
The trial court concluded “that the primary or dominant purpose of the appointment of Plaintiff as successor administratrix was to invoke federal jurisdiction.” However, such a “primary purpose” can exist without bringing this case within the prohibitions of 28 U.S.C. § 1359. There can have been such a purpose, but nevertheless the representative has not been shown to have been collusively or improperly made a party as the statute contemplates. A…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- McSparran v. WeistCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- James L. Lester, Administrator of the Estate of Flossie Mae Garner Brown, Deceased v. Heyward McFaddon and Cameron Lumber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
- Dudley Warren Schilling, Cross v. J. A. Belcher, Sr., Cross Dudley Warren Schilling v. J. A. Belcher, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.