Legal Opinion
In Re: Arthur Baldwin v.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 26, 2012No. 11-4447PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Concerned about the consequences of a District Court order setting a 7.5 hour per side limit on the parties’ presentation of evidence at trial, the sixteen named defendants in this litigation (the “Lemington Defendants”) seek a writ of mandamus to vacate the time-limit order. 2 Because we believe that a direct appeal presents an adequate means for the Lemington Defendants to challenge the District Court’s order, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
I
The Lemington Home for the Aged (the “Home”) is a non-profit nursing care facility in Pittsburgh,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Will v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Estate of Lemington Home for the Aged v. Baldwin (In Re Lemington Home for the Aged).Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Finkel ex rel. Estate of Atomica Design Group, Inc. v. WeVeel LLC (In re Atomica Design Group, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
- Doug Paluck and Rhonda Paluck, as Parents and Natural Guardians on Behalf of Their Minor Son, Karl Paluck v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Andor Health, LLCDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2022
- BRANCH v. BRENNANDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.