GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RELATOR-PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD T. HYDE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, HONORABLE ROBERT C. BELL, JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, AND THE OTHER JUDGES AND OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENTS

8th Cir. | 1957-03-07
No. 15630
241 F.2d 707 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1957) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court granted the petition for rehearing, acknowledging that a recent Supreme Court decision casts doubt on the correctness of its prior disposition.


Facts & Procedural History

The court had previously held that a specific statute was not available for reviewing a discretionary order transferring a case. Subsequently, the Sup…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of this Court was filed December 18, 1956, 238 F. 2d 852, holding that § 1651(a) of Title 28 U.S.C.A. was not available as a means for reviewing and reversing, for an erroneous exercise of discretion, an order transferring this action, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), from the District of Minnesota to the Northern District of California for trial. On January 14, 1957, the Supreme Court decided in the case of La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., Inc., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290, that a nonappealable interlocutory order of a District Judge entered under Rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., refei’ring an antitrust case to a special master for trial, was reviewable and reversible for an abuse of discretion, because of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 (a).

The relator-petitioner has petitioned this Court for a rehearing, because implications which can be drawn from the La Buy decision have cast doubts upon the correctness and propriety of our disposition of the instant case. The petition for rehearing is granted.

The case will be set down for reargument at the May, 1957, session of the Court. The relator-petitioner may have until March 25 to file and serve its brief on reargument. The respondents may have until April 20 to file and serve an answering brief. Ten days thereafter will be allowed the relator-petitioner for a reply brief.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw