1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 67 F.3d
  5. 67 F.3d 1072 (1995)
 

MAYWALT v. PARKER & PARSLEY PETROLEUM CO.

No. 1740, Docket 94-9234.

67 F.3d 1072 (1995)

Mary Ann MAYWALT, Mary White, John Vosefski and J. Richard Aboud DDS, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Vivienne Galligan, Plaintiff, Plaintiff Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARKER & PARSLEY PETROLEUM COMPANY, Barrie M. Damson, William T. Ouzts, Robert F. Carr, III, J. William Pierce, Robert S. Rose, Jerol M. Sonosky, Garth M. Ramsay, Scott D. Sheffield, Herbert C. Williamson, Timothy M. Dunn, James D. Moring, Robert J. Castor and Frank A. Kubica, Defendants-Appellees, Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. Inc., Defendant.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided October 13, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William C. House, New York City (Warren F. Young, Young & Bearden, Tulsa, OK, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Richard J. Kilsheimer, New York City (David R. Markham, Michael A. LaBazzo, Sullivan, Hill, Lewin & Markham, San Diego, CA, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, New York City, Stephen D. Oestreich, Roy L. Jacobs, Wolf Popper Ross Wolf & Jones, New York City, Donald R. Bradford, John R. Decker, Bradford & Decker, Tulsa, OK, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee Class.

Lewis T. LeClair, Dallas, TX (Lori A. Leu, Dallas, TX, Melvin A. Brosterman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City, Michael P. Lynn, Lynn, Stodghill & Melsheimer, Dallas, TX, Eugene Hanson, O'Melveny & Myers, New York City, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KEARSE, ALTIMARI, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellants Mary Ann Maywalt et al., who are four of the five plaintiff class representatives in this securities class action, appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert W. Sweet, Judge, approving the settlement of the litigation. Appellants principally challenge interlocutory orders of the district court (1) denying their request for the appointment...

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