Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson (1968)
the Supreme Court of the United States

Syllabus

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court decision which clarified the meaning and application of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and held that an automobile owner's interest in a suit against his insurer did not make him an "indispensable party" to that suit under Rule 19. The Court also made clear that Supreme Court precedent predating the enactment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not create any substantive right in non-parties to be joined in case, as the Court of Appeals had apparently thought. Warning: template has been deprecated.

932211Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson — Syllabusthe Supreme Court of the United States

Court Documents

Opinion of the Court

Wikipedia article

United States Supreme Court

390 U.S. 102

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Argued: Nov. 6 and 7, 1967. --- Decided: Jan 29, 1968

[Syllabus from pages 102-103 intentionally omitted]

Avram G. Adler, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Norman Paul Harvey, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Company v. Patterson

Notes[edit]

Navigation menu

Search