# Charles Powers, Marguerite Powers v. The Southland Corporation T/a 7-Eleven Robert Yeager

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 24, 1993 · 4 F.3d 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485850

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles POWERS, Marguerite Powers, Appellees, v. the SOUTHLAND CORPORATION T/A 7-Eleven; Robert Yeager, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 24, 1993
- **Citations:** 4 F.3d 223; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 24720
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Becker, Alito, Atkins, Sloviter, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Roth, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 65 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/9485850

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the state appellate court could review a district court’s pre-remand order granting joinder of a defendant
- explaining that, although under the Waco doctrine “the appeal is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d), we still must determine whether the district court’s decision is a ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291”
- explaining that, although under the Waco doctrine “the appeal is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), we still must determine whether the district court’s decision is a ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291”
- noting that, because the order "was interlocutory in nature, there was no opportunity for the decision to have been reviewed in the federal courts, and, as such, the decision has no preclusive effect on state courts"
- finding that order allowing join-der would not be preclusive or unreviewable after remand

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Sept. 24, 1993.
Present SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS, District Judge. *
The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other availablé circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485850. Public record. Not legal advice.