Legal Opinion
Spanner v. Brandt
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 9, 1941PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CONGER, District Judge.
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint herein, pursuant to Rule 12(b) and Rule 19, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, on the ground that certain indispensable parties, namely, Hans J. Spanner, Ulrich W. Doering and Edmund Gerner (called the Inventor Group), have not been joined as parties defendant.
The gravamen of this complaint is that the defendants conspired to/defraud the plaintiff herein. While the/above named Inventor Group are not mentioned in the action as defendants, nevertheless plaintiff insists that they are bound by a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Barney v. Baltimore CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- State of Washington v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Northern Indiana Railroad Co. v. MICHIGAN CENT. RD. CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Roos v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Metropolis Theatre Co. v. BarkhausenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
- Hicks v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Corp.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1945
- Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. v. LivelyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1984
- Charron v. MeauxDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.