Legal Opinion
Roos v. Texas Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 19, 1927No. 352PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The bill is so much made up of charges of evidenc“e and rhetorical nar*172rative that it is nearly impossible tó ascertain from it the “ultimate facts.” • The pleader has wholly disregarded equity rule 25, and ■proceeded as if he were, drafting an ancient bill in equity. However, with this we have nothing to do at present; the only question is whether the Mexican corporation and the plaintiff’s attorneys were indispensable parties to the suit. The defendant’s argument is that no decree can be entered which will not so involve their interests as to prevent…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Payne v. HookSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Barney v. Baltimore CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Mallow v. HindeSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1946
- Schuckman v. RubensteinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- Gordon v. EllimanNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Keegan v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1946
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.