Legal Opinion
Tick v. Cohen
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided April 28, 1986No. 85-5259PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Per curiam
This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (1982) from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties. The only issue presented on appeal is whether the beneficiaries of certain land trusts are indispensable parties within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b). The district court found that although the absent beneficiaries were proper parties to this litigation, they were not indispensable. We reverse.
I
Jerome H. Tick and his wife Bernice J. Tick, as beneficiaries of certain land trusts, brought this action against…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ferdinand Henry Schutten v. Shell Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Carey v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Nathaniel P. Broussard v. Columbia Gulf Transmission CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Liberty Nat. v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Steel Valley Authority v. Union Switch And Signal DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Markham, etc v. FayCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.