Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The statutory rules governing interpleader proceedings were replaced by rules of court that came into force upon the passage of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (as amended by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875), which came to be known as Order 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The Federal Interpleader Act was enacted to overcome the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in New York Life v. Dunlevy 241 U.S. 518, that for a party to be bound by an interpleader that party must be served process in a way that obtains personal jurisdiction by enabling nationwide service of process. [2]
The Act allowed an insurance company, or fraternal benefit society subject to multiple claims on the same policy to file a suit in equity by a bill of interpleader in United States district courts and providing nationwide service of process. It was introduced to overcome the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in New York Life v.
Rule 65.1 addresses security and suretyship issues arising when the court orders a party to deposit security such as a bond. Rule 66 deals with receivership. Rule 67 deals with funds deposited in court, such as in interpleader actions.
President Donald Trump's sweeping assertions of executive power during his first weeks back in office appear headed toward U.S. Supreme Court showdowns, but it remains an open question whether or ...
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U.S. 518 (1916), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a court can exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party in an interpleader if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.
The Florida Supreme Court recently disciplined four attorneys — suspending three and emergency-suspending one. Florida Supreme Court disciplines attorneys in Riviera Beach, Miami, Fort ...
Until 1938, federal courts in the United States followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of Swift v.Tyson. [2] In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different U.S. states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by ...