United States v. Polishan
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
VANASKIE, District Judge.
At issue in the above-captioned criminal ease is the defendant’s motion to compel third parties to fund his defense. Because I find that “ancillary jurisdiction” does not extend to cover defendant’s claim that his former employer and its insurance company must pay defense costs as incurred, defendant’s motion will be denied. 1
1. BACKGROUND
On October 29, 1996, the government filed a twenty-one count indictment against defendant Paul F. Polishan (Polishan), contending that Polishan, while acting as the chief financial officer of the Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- City of Chicago v. International College of SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. BuhlerDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2003
- United States v. WittigDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2007
- Singer v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
- United States v. YatesDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2016