Legal Opinion

United States v. Polishan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided September 10, 1998No. 3:CR-96-0274PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. City of Chicago v. International College of SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  5. 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

  1. United States v. BuhlerDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2003
  2. United States v. WittigDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2007
  3. Singer v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
  4. United States v. YatesDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API