Legal Opinion
Rycoline Products, Inc. v. C & W Unlimited
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 25, 1997No. 96-5788PublishedCited by 231 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*884OPINION
COWEN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the November 20, 1996, order of the district court, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action is barred by application of New Jersey’s Entire Controversy Doctrine. We must decide whether the Entire Controversy Doctrine precludes the initiation of a second action before the first action has been concluded. We also determine the proper procedural mechanism for bringing a motion contending that an action is barred by the Doctrine. We will reverse the order of the district court and remand for further…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by231 opinions
- Dawn Ball v. FamiglioCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Eric Robinson v. Philip L. Johnson the District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, Mike FisherCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Frederick T. Ray v. C.O. Kertes C.O. Stolz C.O. Reed C.O. Rogers Lt. Nash Lt. Hicks Lt. A. Smith Capt. Almanshifer R. Norris Tim Launtz, Frederick RayCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1999
- Somerset Consulting, LLC v. United Capital Lenders, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
226 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.