Legal Opinion
Molinaro v. Lafayette Radio Electronics
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 15, 1973No. Civ. A. No. 73-606PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*465MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WEINER, District. Judge.
Plaintiffs who were previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis 1 in this pro se patent infringement case have come before the Court with several motions for our disposition.
The first motion is that of plaintiff Molinaro to sever his claim from plaintiff Catanzaro. In requesting a separate trial Molinaro asserts that such controversy exists between him and his co-plaintiff that they can not, without prejudice, proceed to bring this action to a final trial on the merits. Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Hyam v. American Export Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Colonial Capital Co. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1961
- Spray Products Corp. v. Strouse, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
- Fisser v. International BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Truswal Systems Corp. v. Hydro-Air Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Stabilus v. Haynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson & GreavesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- In Re Molinaro/Catanzaro Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1974
- Golub v. CohenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein's Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.