Legal Opinion · Dissent

Skevofilax v. Quigley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided January 22, 1987No. 85-5300Published

1DissentStapleton, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that a United States district court has ancillary jurisdiction to execute on its judgments.1 I further agree that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 governs how that ancillary jurisdiction is to be exercised, namely “in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held.” The “practice and procedure” in New Jersey, however, does not authorize what transpired in this case. Nor does Rule 13(g). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

A

New Jersey courts are authorized by statute to execute on judgments. The judgment debtor’s real…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. Riggs v. Johnson CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1868

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API