Legal Opinion
Saalfrank v. O'DANIEL
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided January 27, 1975No. C 71-60PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
WALINSKI, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court once again on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint so as to assert, pursuant to Rule 14(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a claim directly against the third-party defendant Parkview Memorial Hospital [hereinafter Parkview]. This time he asks the Court to reconsider its rulings of October 6, 1972, and June 26, 1974, in which the Court denied plaintiff the opportunity to assert such a claim because of the lack of diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and Park-view. In the June 26th order, this Court said…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Moore v. New York Cotton ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. TashireSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barnes Group, Inc. v. C & C Products, Inc., and Roy E. McGuireCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
- Ned G. Saalfrank v. Melva M. O'daniel, and Third Party Plaintiff-Cross v. Parkview Memorial Hospital, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Morgan v. Serro Travel Trailer Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1975
- Barnes Group, Inc. v. C & C Products, Inc., and Roy E. McGuireCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
- Burleson v. Coastal Recreation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.