KUHN ET AL.
v.
CANTEEN FOOD SERVICE, INC., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an appeal from an order dismissing a suit against only some of the defendants is not a final order and thus not appealable.
Plaintiffs filed suit against corporate and individual defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit as to the individual defendants, but the case re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Piecemeal Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs are numerous and have filed suit against the Canteen Food Service, Inc., a corporation, the Dinsmore Associates, Inc., a corporation, and some individual defendants. The defendants have filed separate and several motions to strike the complaint and to dismiss the cause, or in the alternative to strike various portions of the complaint in the above-entitled cause and to require an election, and for a bill of particulars, and to require the plaintiffs to make the unstricken portions of the complaint definite and certain.
Among the several phases of this motion, the District Court sustained the motion of the individual defendants to strike from the complaint all reference to the individual defendants named therein and to dismiss the suit as to the individual defendants. The complaint was dismissed as to the individual defendants. The order does not say anything about leave to amend. The cause remained pending as to the corporations. From that portion of the order relating to the individual defendants the plaintiffs gave notice of appeal.
The individual defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the order appealed from is not final. We agree. We have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal of this kind which is interlocutory only. 28 U.S.C.A. § 225; Hohorst v. Ham burg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443. The cases are not considered here piecemeal, and as a general rule are considered only upon such orders and judgments as are final and decisive of all the issues as to all the parties. Where all the parties are charged jointly and the cause remains pending as to some, the case is not final. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., supra; Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, 5 Cir., 119 F. 2d 465; Atwater v. North American Coal Corporation, 111 F. 2d 125; Hunter v. Federal Life Insurance Co., 8 Cir., 103 F. 2d 192; Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Commission, 69 App.D.C. 82, 99 F. 2d 117; Fields v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 559; Lockhart v. New York Life Insurance Co., 4 Cir., 71 F. 2d 684.
Since there was no final decision, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and the motion to dismiss is sustained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Republic OF China v. Am. Express Co., Inc., 190 F.2d 334 (2d Cir. 1951)
-
Boston Med. Supply Co. v. LEA & Febiger, 195 F.2d 853 (1st Cir. 1952)
-
Hardy v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 222 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1893)
- Hunteman v. NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 119 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1941)
- Southland Indus., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 99 F.2d 117 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
- Atwater v. N. Am. Coal Corp., 111 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1940)
- Fields et ux. v. Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co., 93 F.2d 559 (4th Cir. 1938)
- Lockhart v. NEW York Life INS. Co., 71 F.2d 684 (4th Cir. 1934)
- Hunter v. Fed. Life INS. Co., 103 F.2d 192 (8th Cir. 1939)