Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Fiumara v. Texaco, Inc.

310 F.2d 737

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1962-12-20
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. Upon review of the record we are of the opinion that the District Court did not err in granting the motion of the defendants for summary judgment. The Order and Judgment of the District Court of May 4, 1962 granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Fiumara v. Texaco, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 5 opinions

FIUMARA v. TEXACO, INC.,310 F.2d 737(3rd Cir. 1962)

Pasquale FIUMARA, Appellant, v. TEXACO, INC., Humble Oil Refining

Company, Gulf Oil Corporation and Sinclair Refining Company.

No. 14073.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued December 13, 1962.

Decided December 20, 1962.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Francis L. Van Dusen, District Judge.

A.E. Hurshman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Henry T. Reath, Philadelphia, Pa. (Amzy B. Steed, New York City, Duane, Morris Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for defendant-appellee Texaco Inc.

Robert T. Tate, Jr., New York City, Miles W. Kirkpatrick, Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant-appellee Humble Oil Refining Co.

John T. Clary, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant-appellee Gulf Oil Corp.

Frank W. Clampitt, New York City, Robert W. Sayre, Saul, Ewing, Remick Saul, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant-appellee Sinclair Refining Co.

Before KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBERG, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record we are of the opinion that the District Court did not err in granting the motion of the defendants for summary judgment.

The Order and Judgment of the District Court of May 4, 1962 granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment will be affirmed.Page 738