Legal Opinion
Ex Parte Edelstein
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 4, 1929PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating tho facts as above).
Both sides agree that the plaintiff cannot appeal from the decree dismissing the bill in part, and, as he has not discontinued tho suit against Gillmore, Mitchell, and Dullzell, the first question is whether we have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. It is abundantly settled that we have, when it is necessary to protect our appellate jurisdiction, whether or not the cause he already before us on appeal (D., L. & W. R. R. v. Rellstab, 276 U. S. 1, 48 S. Ct. 203, 72 L. Ed. 439; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762; In re…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- McClellan v. CarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Bank of the United States v. DeveauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Banco Nacional De Cuba v. SabbatinoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Field v. Volkswagenwerk AGCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Zalkind v. ScheinmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Verlinden B. v. V. Central Bank of NigeriaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- American Federation of Musicians v. SteinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1954
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.