Document Mentions (5 shared documents)

EFTA00583454

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

on from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." hi. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

EFTA00209657

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

24 F.2d 158 (11th Cir. 1955) 55 *Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) passim Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072 (11th Cir. 1976) 32 Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) 54 *Santobello v. United States, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 15, 16,31 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

EFTA00583760

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

ion from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non- party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict