Legal Opinion
Mohasco Industries, Inc. v. Lydick
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 1, 1972No. 71-2825PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:
This is an original proceeding in the nature of mandamus, calendared for argument by a panel of this court after it had disallowed an attempted appeal from an order vacating an attachment.
Mohasco, a New York corporation, brought a diversity action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking money alleged to be due for merchandise sold by Mohasco to Murray B. Marsh Co., a Washington corporation doing business in California. Mohasco attached Marsh property under Section 537 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Randone v. Appellate DepartmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Pacific Car and Foundry Company v. Honorable Martin Pence, United States District Judge, District of Hawaii, and L. C. O'Neil Trucks Pty. LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
- Property Research Financial Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Edward Belfer, Samuel P. Norton, William F. Raff and Leonard I. Turner v. Martin Pence, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
3Cited by2 opinions
- Juanita Hartland v. Alaska Airlines, a Corporation, and the Boeing Company, a Corporation, and United States of America, Third-Party Juanita Hartland v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Ely, Guess & Rudd, as Attorneys for Carol Stendingh, Personal Representative and Administratrix of the Estate of Mabel Sampson, Decedent, Martha Susan Golub, of the Estate of Harvey Golub, Deceased v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Mohasco Industries, Inc. v. LydickCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972