1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 957 F.2d
  5. 957 F.2d 90 (1992)
 

SMITH v. INDUSTRIAL VALLEY TITLE INS. CO.

Nos. 91-1555 to 91-1558.

957 F.2d 90 (1992)

Anne Marie SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL VALLEY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. Gary VOLINER and Cindy Voliner, Husband and Wife, Individually and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Professional Abstract and Assurance Corp. May FRANKEL, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY LEGAL ABSTRACT COMPANY. Carolyn BURNS, as Executrix of the Estate of Juliette L. Echols, Deceased Attilio J. Chiarrocchi, as Chiarrocchi, Deceased Mau Thi Le, Individually and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Northwestern Abstract Company, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided February 24, 1992.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Morris M. Shuster, William D. Marvin (argued), Shuster & Marvin, Bala Cynwyd, Pa., for appellants.

Patrick J. O'Connor, Richard C. Bennett, Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Industrial Valley Title Ins. Co. and Continental Ins. Co.

James J. Binns, Mark R. Kmetz, Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman, DeStefano & Rohn, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Legal Abstract.

Steven R. Waxman (argued), Eric L. Settle, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Chicago Title Ins. Co.

Carl N. Martin, II, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Professional Abstract and Assurance Corp.

Franklin Poul, Martha E. Johnston, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Comm. Land Title Ins. and NW Abstract Co. Inc.

Before: COWEN, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge:

In these consolidated class actions removed to the district court from the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, the district court dismissed the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), after denying plaintiffs' motions to remand the matter to the state court. The question is whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Since we conclude it did not, we will vacate its dismissal order and remand...

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