IN RE KILPATRICK. IN RE PARKER
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 it lacked jurisdiction to review appeals from orders denying dismissal without prejudice.
Petitioners sought dismissal of their suits without prejudice, but their motions were denied. They attempted to appeal these denials, and when the tri…
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 Final Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, plaintiffs in separate suits in the court below, moved there for a dismissal without prejudice of their suits. Their motions denied, each filed notice of appeal. Alleging that respondent notwithstanding their appeals has set the causes for trial and, unless prohibited from doing so, would proceed to trial in them, each has filed a petition for writ of prohibition.
This court may issue writs of prohibition only in aid of its jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district courts.1 It appears from the motion papers and the answers thereto that petitioners’ attempted appeals from orders denying dismissal are not from final judgments.2 It is quite plain that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the questions sought to be raised in the applications for the writs and that for want of jurisdiction the petitions must be denied.
28 U.S.C.A. § 225; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 6 S.Ct. 570, 29 L.Ed. 601; In re The Petition of United States, 263 U.S. 389, 44 S.Ct. 130, 68 L.Ed. 351; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185,
Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. McHie, 6 Cir., 100 F. 2d 86; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Winn, 5 Cir., 227 F. 50; Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 30 S.Ct. 539, 54 L.Ed. 821.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patrocinia Meneses v. Secretary of Health, 442 F.2d 803 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
-
Kilpatrick v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 337 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1949)
-
NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. B. L. Jones & Co. & W. W. Roberts, 254 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1958)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943)
- Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1910)
- Smith v. Whitney & Others, 116 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1886)
- Ex parte in the Matter of the United States, 263 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1923)
- Grand Trunk W. R. Co. v. McHIE, 100 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1938)