# Mollie Krieger v. Ownership Corporation, a Corporation of New Jersey

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 29, 1959 · 270 F.2d 265

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9446978

## Case

- **Full name:** Mollie KRIEGER, Appellant, v. OWNERSHIP CORPORATION, a Corporation of New Jersey
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 29, 1959
- **Citations:** 270 F.2d 265
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Biggs
- **Judges:** McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley, Biggs, Mc-Laughlin, Hastie, Forman
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9446978

## Opinion text

BIGGS, Chief Judge, and HASTIE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Though we concur in the result reached in the majority opinion we fear that some of the language in it could have an unfortunate effect on pretrial procedure. Unfortunate inferences can be drawn from the words used which, we believe, go beyond the requirements of this case.
Rule 16, subsection (6) provides that a pretrial order “controls” the subsequent course of the action, not only framing the issues but also fixing concessions made by the parties in the record. See Owen v. Schwartz, 1949, 85 U.S.App. D.C. 302, 177 F.2d 641, 642-644 , 14 A.L.R.2d 1337 ; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Paragraph 16.02 n. 3, 16.19; and Atwood v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 885, 889 . The language employed by the majority denigrates the proposition that under Rule 16 facts may be agreed upon and that concessions and allegations made at pretrial are binding on the parties and constitute the basis on which the case must be tried.
On this issue we are particularly disturbed by the language of the opinion which states, “The District Court’s error” in finding that there was no genuine issue as to material facts “was com *274 pounded by its error in ‘assuming’ the facts to be as stated by plaintiff’s counsel in the pre-trial proceedings * * This is a statement that facts conceded and embodied in a pretrial order cannot be the basis of a summary judgment. If this has become the law the effect of those potent instruments, the pretrial conference and the pretrial conference order, will be largely obliterated. We are of the opinion that the ruling quoted is erroneous.
The ruling quoted is to the effect that a trial court cannot assume controverted facts against the movenant in deciding a motion for summary judgment. If a trial court cannot do this a demurrable complaint may be allowed to stand and an unnecessary trial ensue. Considerable emphasis is placed on this ruling which is unnecessary to decide the ease at bar.
For these reasons we dissent from the refusal of the court to grant rehearing before the court en bane, in order that the ground of decision may be appropriately narrowed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9446978. Public record. Not legal advice.