Pan American World Airways, Inc.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
United States Court of Appeals, Second CircuitMay 10, 1966
360 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1966)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • United States v. Ford

    …Cf. SEC v. Laird, 598 F.2d 1162, 1163 (9th Cir. 1979) (appeal of order compelling testimony became moot when…

  • Tabachnik v. Dorsey

    …This request will be moot if the case is dismissed. Cf. Ruby v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 360 F.2d…

lock 7 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Summaries written by judges


  • dismissing as moot an appeal from refusal of preliminary injunction; while appeal was pending, district court dismissed underlying action, which dismissal was not appealed

    Summary of this case from In re Caribbean Tubular Corp.

  • dismissing appeal from order denying motion for preliminary injunction on ground that it had become moot where complaint in case had been dismissed

    Summary of this case from Tabachnik v. Dorsey

  • stating that an appeal from denial of preliminary injunction becomes moot when the underlying claim is dismissed

    Summary of this case from Eastwood v. Atlas Locksmith Solutions, L.L.C.

No. 401 Docket 30377.

Submitted May 4, 1966.

Decided May 10, 1966.

Cohen Weiss, New York City (Henry Weiss, Herbert A. Levy and Robert S. Savelson, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Poletti, Freidin, Prashker, Feldman Gartner, New York City (Jesse Freidin, Murray Gartner and Edward R. Cohen, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Daniel Kornblum and O'Donnell Schwartz, New York City (Asher W. Schwartz and Daniel Kornblum, New York City, on the brief), for intervenor-appellee.

Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

After this appeal had been taken from Judge Levet's denial of a preliminary injunction, D.C., 252 F. Supp. 393, Judge Murphy dismissed the complaint in this case, in the exercise of his sound discretion, on the ground that a prior action (65 Civ. 2870) 252 F. Supp. 873, pending, as Judge Murphy stated "between the `same' parties" would dispose of all the issues raised in this action. The appeal has become moot and is, accordingly, dismissed. See Janousek v. Doyle, 313 F.2d 916 (8th Cir. 1963); Dempsey v. Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y., 131 F.2d 103 (7th Cir. 1942); but cf. Stell v. Savannah-Chatham Board of Education, 333 F.2d 55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Roberts v. Stell, 379 U.S. 933, 85 S.Ct. 332, 13 L.Ed.2d 344 (1964).

In the interest of efficient judicial administration, we note that Judge Levet did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we suggest to the parties and the District Court that they proceed promptly with the prior pending case and to a determination of which agreement between Pan American and the Air Line Pilots Association, International, or between Pan American and the Flight Engineers' International Association, PAA Chapter, is controlling on the question of whether the so-called "new hires" are required to pay dues to FEIA, as a condition of remaining in the employ of Pan American as flight engineers. Once this question is resolved, if a "minor" dispute still remains in the case over the interpretation of the language of the governing agreement, it should be settled by the System Board of Adjustment.