Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Foley
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
Petitioners, hereafter generally referred to as Pioche, seek mandate to compel the respondent court and judge to dismiss an “amended supplemental complaint,” which was filed by Fidelity (plaintiff below and intervener here) subsequent to our decisions and mandates on prior appeals in this case. The district judge refused to rule on Pioche’s motion to dismiss the aforesaid amended supplemental complaint. Instead, he postponed action thereon until the time of trial.
Our opinions and orders on the prior appearances here of the controversy between Fidelity and Pioche are published in Pioche Mines…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., Ely Valley Mines, Inc., and John Janney v. Helen Dolman, John Janney v. Helen DolmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Hung Hy Nguyen Dba Mekong Market v. United States of America, Raymond Bertrand Dba Ray's Groceries v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Pioche Mines Consoldated v. FoleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956