Cheiman v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the automatic stay was inapplicable to an action for violations of securities laws instituted against former directors because the debtor was not deemed an indispensable party
• the possibility of a later action being inconsistent with the result of the present action does not subject a party to inconsistent obligations
• “The ‘complete relief provision of Rule 19 relates to those persons already parties and does not concern any subsequent relief via contribution or indemnification for which the absent party might later be responsible.”
• bankrupt corporation was not indispensable where initial defendant was capable of providing complete relief
• “A plaintiff is under no requirement to join all parties who might be jointly and severally liable.” (citing Delano v. Ives, 40 F.Supp. 672 (E.D.Pa.1941); Satink v. Holland Township, 31 F.Supp. 229 (D.N.J.1940))
• “Rule 19 does not speak of inconsistent ‘results.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).