1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 732 F.2d
  5. 732 F.2d 325 (1984)
 

STRUBLE v. N.J. BREWERY EMP. WELFARE TRUST FUND

Nos. 83-5115, and 83-5220 to 83-5224.

732 F.2d 325 (1984)

William STRUBLE, et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. NEW JERSEY BREWERY EMPLOYEES' WELFARE TRUST FUND, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Pabst Brewing Co., Universal Grain Co. of New Jersey, and Farmers Feed Company, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, and Liebmann Breweries, Inc., John Ostach, Paul Charrier, John Fitzgerald, Alfredo Castro, Henry Hamilton, Jerome Tiermann, William Griffin, and Frank Kellett, Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided April 16, 1984.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

George Duggan (argued), Reitman, Parsonnet, Maisel & Duggan, Newark, N.J., for appellants.

Edward F. Ryan, Rosemary A. Hall (argued), Kevin P. Duffy, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, N.J., for appellee and cross-appellant Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Raymond M. Tierney, Jr., Mary E. Tracey (argued), Shanley & Fisher, P.C., Newark, N.J., for appellees Ostach, et al.

Frederick T. Shea, John F. Gibbons, Brian S. Conneely, Kelley, Drye & Warren, New York City, Donald Maizys, Farrell, Curtis, Carlin & Davidson, Morristown, N.J., for appellee and cross-appellant New Jersey Brewery Employees' Welfare Trust Fund.

Justin P. Walder, Thomas J. Spies, Walder, Sondak, Berkeley & Brogan, P.A., Roseland, N.J., for appellee and cross-appellant Farmers Feed Co.

John C. Lifland, Stryker, Tams & Dill, Newark, N.J., for appellee and cross-appellant Pabst Brewing Co.

Raymond J. Fleming, Feuerstein, Sachs, Maitlin, Rosenstein & Fleming, West Orange, N.J., for appellee and cross appellant Universal Grain Co. of New Jersey.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge and GARTH and BECKER, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

SEITZ, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the portion of the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on two of the four counts in the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The district court certified that portion of the order as final under Rule 54(b), and we therefore have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Defendants cross-appeal the remaining portion of the district court's order denying their summary...

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