Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Annenberg v. Alleghany Corp.

360 F.2d 211

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1966-05-19
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: In No. 30213, plaintiff Schwartz appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Schwartz v. Bowman, his stockholder’s derivative action against several defendants on behalf of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., in which case motions by each of the defendants-appel-lees for dismissal of the complaint and for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 56(b) F.R.Civ.P. were granted. In No. 30147, plaintiff Annenberg, who had brought her stockholder’s derivative action on behalf of Alleghany Corporation, appeals from the granting on the same day by the same court of a similar motion made in her ease by defendant Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. The motions were disposed of together, counsel for the plaintiffs in the two actions submitting joint papers in opposition to the motions. The motions were granted as to defendants-appellees in both cases on the ground that as to them the court had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the two complaints. *212Judge Bryan rendered an opinion in Schwartz v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Annenberg v. Alleghany Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 7 opinions

ANNENBERG v. ALLEGHANY CORPORATION,360 F.2d 211(2nd Cir. 1966)

Jeanette ANNENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLEGHANY CORPORATION and the

Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co., Defendants-Appellees. Sandor SCHWARTZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cyrus S. EATON, Walter J. Tuohy, Cyrus S. Eaton,

Jr., Clinton W. Murchison, Anita O'Keeffe Young, as Executrix of the

estate of Robert R. Young, Deceased, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert

Bowman, Allan B. Kirby, Alleghany Corporation and the Chesapeake Ohio

Railway Co., et al., Defendants.

Nos. 274, 305, Dockets 30147, 30213.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued March 30, 1966.

Decided May 19, 1966.

Appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Frederick van Pelt Bryan, J., granting motions for dismissal of the complaints and for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 56(b), F.R.Civ.P. Judgments below affirmed on the opinion below in Schwartz v. Bowman,244 F. Supp. 51(S.D.N.Y. 1965).

Norman Annenberg, New York City, for appellant Annenberg.

Rogers, Hoge Hills, Sidney P. Howell, Jr., Marie V. Driscoll, New York City, for Alleghany Corporation.

Donovan, Leisure, Newton Irvine, New York City (Carl E. Newton, James M. MacNee, III, M. Lauck Walton, New York City, of counsel), for Chesapeake Ohio Ry.

J. Milton Fainer, Sidney L. Garwin, Bertram Bronzaft, New York City, for appellant Schwartz.

Donovan, Leisure, Newton Irvine, New York City (Carl E. Newton, M. Lauck Walton, New York City, of counsel), for appellees Eaton, Tuohy and Eaton, Jr.

Satterlee, Warfield Stephens (Henry J. Formon, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellee Murchison.

Lord, Day Lord, New York City (Thomas F. Daly, William E. McCurdy, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellee Young.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 30213, plaintiff Schwartz appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Schwartz v. Bowman, his stockholder's derivative action against several defendants on behalf of Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co., in which case motions by each of the defendants-appellees for dismissal of the complaint and for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 56(b) F.R.Civ.P. were granted.

In No. 30147, plaintiff Annenberg, who had brought her stockholder's derivative action on behalf of Alleghany Corporation, appeals from the granting on the same day by the same court of a similar motion made in her case by defendant Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company.

The motions were disposed of together, counsel for the plaintiffs in the two actions submitting joint papers in opposition to the motions. The motions were granted as to defendants-appellees in both cases on the ground that as to them the court had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the two complaints.Page 212

Judge Bryan rendered an opinion in Schwartz v. Bowman, reported at244 F. Supp. 51(S.D.N.Y. 1965), and filed a memorandum opinion the same day inAnnenberg,in which he stated he was dismissing the latter complaint entirely for the reasons expressed in his opinion in Schwartz v. Bowman.

We affirm the judgments below dismissing the complaint inAnnenbergand the complaint as to the defendants-appellees inSchwartzon the exhaustive and learned opinion below of Judge Bryan in Schwartz v. Bowman and on his unreported memorandum opinion in Annenberg v. Alleghany.