GEORGE GILBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF FAIRBANKS, APPELLEE
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 the order dismissing only the counterclaim was not a final, appealable order because it did not adjudicate all claims.
Appellee brought a civil action against appellant, who filed an answer and counterclaim. Appellee moved to dismiss the counterclaim, which the Distric…
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 Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On August 23, 1956, in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, appel-lee brought a civil action against appellant. Appellant filed an answer1 containing a counterclaim. The counterclaim was-in two counts. Appellee moved to' dismiss both counts, thus, in effect, moving to dismiss the counterclaim. The District Court granted the motion and entered an order which, in effect, dismissed the counterclaim.2 This appeal is from the order. Three claims were presented in this action — a claim of appellee against appellant, stated in the complaint, and two claims of appellant against appellee, stated in the counterclaim. The order adjudicated appellant’s claims against appel-lee, but did not adjudicate appellee’s claim against appellant. The determination mentioned in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. was not made. Hence the order was not appealable.3
Appeal dismissed.
. The answer was entitled “Answer and counterclaim.”
. In the order, the counterclaim was incorrectly referred to as “the action set forth in said first and second counts in [appellant’s] counterclaim.” Obviously, the thing set forth in the two counts was the counterclaim.
. Walter W. Johnson Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 223 F. 2d 101. See also Kam Koon Wan v. E. E. Black Ltd., 9 Cir., 182 F. 2d 146; Burkhart v. United States, 9 Cir., 210 F. 2d 602; Russell v. Texas Co., 9 Cir., 211 F. 2d 740; Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 212 F. 2d 953; Steiner v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., 9 Cir., 220 F. 2d 105; Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. American Seating Co., 9 Cir., 225 F. 2d 838; Id., 9 Cir., 248 F. 2d 846; Russell v. Hackworth, 9 Cir., 233 F. 2d 503; Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp., 9 Cir., 237 F. 2d 386; Massa v. Jiffy Products Co., 9 Cir., 238 F. 2d 228.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miles v. City OF Chandler, 297 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961)
-
Gilbertson v. City OF Fairbanks, 262 F.2d 734 (9th Cir. 1959)
-
Century Inv. Corp. v. United States, 277 F.2d 247 (9th Cir. 1960)
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 (11 total)
- Selma Steiner v. 20TH Century-Fox Film Corp., 220 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Kam Koon Wan v. Black, 182 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Burkhart v. United States, 210 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Walter W. Johnson Co. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp., 223 F.2d 101 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Wynn v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp., 212 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of Am., 237 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1956)
- Russell v. THE Tex. Co., 211 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1954)
- Glens Falls Indem. Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 225 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Russell v. Hackworth, 233 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1956)
- Laurence Massa v. Jiffy Prods. Co., Inc., 238 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1956)