1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 557 F.2d
  5. 557 F.2d 395 (1977)
 

MacKETHAN v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO.

Nos. 76-1979, 76-1980.

557 F.2d 395 (1977)

Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellee, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy, Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/Seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Defendants. Shirley A. ALEXANDER et al., Appellees, v. PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL AND COMPANY and its Individual Partners, Appellants, v. Edwin R. MacKETHAN, Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Appellees. Thomas L. Hofheimer, et al., Amicus Curiae.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided May 23, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1977.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

R. Gordon Smith, Richmond, Va. (Robert H. Patterson, Jr., James L. Sanderlin, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellants Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

Oren R. Lewis, Jr., Arlington, Va. (John E. Fricker, Lewis, Wilson, Cowles, Lewis & Jones, Ltd., Arlington, Va., on brief), J. Vernon Patrick, Jr., Birmingham, Ala. (Barton S. Sacher, Berkowitz, Lefkovits & Patrick, Birmingham, Ala., on brief), for appellees in 76-1979 and 76-1980.

Marshall T. Bohannon, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Herbert & Bohannon, Norfolk, Va., on brief), and Jordan A. Pugh, III, Norfolk, Va., for appellees in 76-1980.

Alan J. Hofheimer, Norfolk, Va. (Hofheimer, Nusbaum & McPhaul, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for Amicus Curiae.

Before MOORE, Senior Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company appeal the orders of the district court dismissing a third party complaint against Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation and its receiver and refusing to disqualify counsel for the receiver and depositors. We conclude that the order denying disqualification of counsel is appealable because it is a final order collateral to the main proceeding. Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases