indispensable party

• Patent Owner Is a Necessary and Indispensable Party Where Exclusive Licensee Acquired Less Than All Substantial Rights.

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - December 2010 Judges: Lourie (author), Bryson, and Dyk [Appealed from D. Mass, Judge Tauro] In A123 Systems, I...

• Mondaq Business Briefing
• Nbr. 2011, January 2011

• Patent Owner Is a Necessary and Indispensable Party Where Exclusive Licensee Acquired Less Than All Substantial Rights

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - December 2010 Judges: Lourie (author), Bryson, and Dyk [Appealed from D. Mass, Judge Tauro] In A123 Systems...

• Mondaq Business Briefing
• United States Law Articles in English
• Intellectual Property

• Court Digest

S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Indispensable Party

• Daily Record (Rochester, NY)
• January 08, 2009

• Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco, (Ohio 2012)

Foreclosure; objection to magistrate’s decision; fraudulent transfer; jurisdiction of necessary and indispensable party; personal jurisdiction; service by publication; failure to conduct hearing; strict compliance

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Indispensable Party

An individual who has an interest in the substantive issue of a legal action of such a nature that a final decree cannot be hande...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Fri–Jam

• Gene M. Hamby, Jr. and Robert M. Baker, a Partnership Doing Business As Hamby & Baker, Attorneys, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward J. Janer, an Indispensable Party; United States Department of Labor, United States of America, William Brock, As Secretary of Labor, Defendants-Appellees. Gene M. Hamby, Jr. and Robert M. Baker, a Partnership D/B/a Hamby & Baker, Attorneys, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ruben L. Holcombe, an Indispensable Party, Plaintiff, United States Department of Labor, United States of America; William Brock, As Secretary of Labor, United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 86-7222, 86-7227. Non-Argument Calendar., 808 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1987)

Gene M. Hamby, Jr., Hamby & Baker, Sheffield, Ala., pro se. Frank W. Donaldson, U.S. Atty., George C. Batcheler, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-app...

• Federal Circuits

• May a Member of an Llc or a Limited Partner Bring a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Those Controlling the Llc or Partnership As a Diversity Action?

Burkhard explores whether the LLC or partnership should be deemed either "necessary" or "indispensable" when a member or partner brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. He explores those cases that have applied the provisions of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in determining whether the "entity" is itself a necessary or indispensable party. In conclusion, Burkhard writes that when one or more members allege that other members either have defrauded the business, failed to carefully operate it, or in some other manner engaged in a breach of fiduciary duty, probably the most important, if not controlling, factor to determine both whether the LLC or partnership is necessary or indispensable is whether the business has an interest separate from that of the complaining me...

• Review of Litigation, The
• Vol. 23 Nbr. 2, April 2004

• Groups Want Dnr Added to Suit Over Drilling in State Park

Environmental groups want a Logan County judge to add the state Division of Natural Resources as a party to an ongoing lawsuit over oil and gas drilling proposed for Chief Logan State Park. The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the Friends of Blackwater and former parks chief Cordie Hudkins argued that the DNR is a "necessary and indispensable party" to the suit because it is charged with overseeing and protecting state parks.

• Charleston Gazette
• October 08, 2009

• Bank of New York v. Stuart, (Ohio 2007)

Promissory note – mortgage – assignment – real party in interest – Civ.R. 17 – indispensable party – affirmative defense – waived.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Water Suit May Hit High Court -- Miss. Judge Says He Can't Rule On Memphis Case

OXFORD, Miss. - A legal battle that's already cost both sides upward of $1 million grew more expensive Monday as a federal judge ruled that Mississippi's billion-dollar water-theft lawsuit against Memphis should be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In dismissing the suit, U.S. Dist. Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled that his court lacks jurisdiction because the state of Tennessee, though not named as a defendant, must be brought in as a "necessary and indispensable" party. That makes the case a dispute between states, the arbiter for which must be the Supreme Court, he said.

• The Commercial Appeal (2007-Current)
• February 05, 2008