Legal Opinion
Texaco, Inc. v. Fiumara
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 31, 1964No. 35208PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge.
Plaintiffs request this Court to enjoin Pasquale Fiumara and his representatives from prosecuting any claim, cause of action, question or fact which was or could have been litigated in two prior actions decided by this Court. (Civil Action Nos. 29671, and 33296.)
Since “a motion for injunction pendente lite is addressed to the judicial discretion of the District Court,”1 it is necessary to note in some detail the unique facts and changes in law which have been considered in exercising my judicial discretion to at this stage deny the relief requested.
Plaintiffs are…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Yakus v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Simpson v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Sims v. GreeneCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. White Cross Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Burche Co. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Butterman v. Walston & Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1970
- Fiumara v. Texaco, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Texaco, Inc. v. FiumaraDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 v. B. R. BurroughsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 v. BurroughsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969