Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

88-8026 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 88-8026 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 20, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 865 F.2d 256 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Ella H. BRAUN, Ernest S. Cornwell, Charles A. Coryell, Jr., Melvin K. Nielson, Dale M. Neilson, Individually and as Trustees or Agents of the Salling Hanson Company Trust, and Johannesburg Manufacturing Compan
More

865 F.2d 256

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Ella H. BRAUN, Ernest S. Cornwell, Charles A. Coryell, Jr.,
Melvin K. Nielson, Dale M. Neilson, Individually and as
Trustees or Agents of the Salling Hanson Company Trust, and
Johannesburg Manufacturing Company Trust, both Michigan
Trusts, Petitioners,
v.
SHR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a West Virginia Limited
Partnership, Joburg Limited Partnership, a West
Virginia Limited Partnership, Respondents.

No. 88-8026.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1988.

1

Before MILBURN and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH, District Judge.*

ORDER

2

The defendants, trustees of two liquidating trusts, petition for leave to appeal the order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction this action for an accounting, removal of the trustees and damages. The issue for which the petitioners seek review concerns whether the citizenship of limited partners in a limited partnership must be considered in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition to the petition.

3

To obtain permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), the petitioner must show that a controlling question of law is involved as to which there exists substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Cardwell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 504 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir.1974). Upon consideration of this petition, we conclude that the petitioner has met these criteria. Accordingly,

4

It is ORDERED that the petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) is granted.

*

The Honorable Richard F. Suhrheinrich, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer