You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Morganroth v. Norris McLaughlin

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-2087

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; June 13, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Morganroth, a Michigan partnership, and Mayer Morganroth appealed against Norris, McLaughlin, Marcus, P.C. and several individuals, including Victor S. Elgort and Daniel R. Guadalupe, in case number 02-2087. The appeal arose from a prior ruling by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, presided over by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. The case was argued on April 10, 2003, and the opinion was filed on May 30, 2003. On June 13, 2003, the court issued an order amending the case caption by removing the names “Charles H. Newman” and “David C. Roberts.” The opinion is considered precedential and is part of the 2003 Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The ruling was decided by Circuit Judges Barry and Rosenn, and Senior District Judge Pollak, who sat by designation. This decision is available for public access through the Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Case Caption

Application: The court exercised its authority to amend the case caption to reflect the correct parties involved in the appeal.

Reasoning: On June 13, 2003, the court issued an order amending the case caption by removing the names 'Charles H. Newman' and 'David C. Roberts.'

Judicial Authority in Appellate Proceedings

Application: The appeal was reviewed and decided by a combination of circuit judges and a senior district judge, highlighting the collaborative judicial authority in appellate cases.

Reasoning: The ruling was decided by Circuit Judges Barry and Rosenn, and Senior District Judge Pollak, who sat by designation.

Precedential Value of Court Decisions

Application: The opinion in this appeal is deemed precedential, meaning it establishes a legal standard or principle that must be followed in future similar cases.

Reasoning: The opinion is considered precedential and is part of the 2003 Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.