Citation network
Provident Bank Vs. Patterson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 29, 1968
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 102 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Provident Bank v. PattersonSearch
-
U.S. 102 (1968) Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
stated in Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
the outsider, it was proper to proceed to adjudicate as between the parties. The first of the cases was Mallow v. HindeSearch
-
nothing for the Court to decide. The second case relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Northern Indiana R. Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
the question whether to proceed or dismiss in the absence of an interested but not joinable outsider is Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
the suit should be dismissed. The majority of the Court of Appeals read Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
issues of state law when those same issues are being presented contemporaneously to state courts, e.g., Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
See Fitzgerald v. HaynesSearch
-
Fouke v. SchenewerkSearch
-
overruled in the district court, the court of appeals may correct the error to prevent harassment of defendants. Young v. PowellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Keegan v. HumbleSearch
-
See Bourdieu v. PacificSearch
-
into indispensability would be unnecessary where the complaint did not state a cause of action. But see Calcote v. TexasSearch
-
Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(1), 81 Harv.L.Rev. 356 (1967). Compare Roos v. TexasSearch
-
or dismiss in his absence, and since that decision must be made on the basis of practical considerations, Shaughnessy v. PedreiroSearch
-
Niles-Bement Co. v. IronSearch
-
An excellent example of the cases causing apprehension is Parker Rust-Proof Co. v. WesternSearch
-
leading to a resolution consistent with practical and creative justice. For examples in the latter category, see Roos v. TexasSearch
-
Kroese v. GeneralSearch
-
Stevens v. LoomisSearch
-
example, it has been clear that, in a diversity case, the question of joinder is one of federal law. E.g., De Korwin v. FirstSearch
-
To be sure, state law questions may arise in determining what interest the outsider actually has, e.g., Kroese v. GeneralSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Provident Bank v. PattersonSearch
-
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
the Court of Appeals, Northern Indiana R. Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
Young v. PowellSearch
-
Calcote v. TexasSearch
-
Compare Roos v. TexasSearch
-
Parker Rust-Proof Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Roos v. TexasSearch
-
E.g., De Korwin v. FirstSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial