MIDWESTERN DEVELOPMENTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 appeal must be dismissed because the record contains no appealable order. A clerk's purported order of dismissal is a nullity.
Plaintiff sued to quiet title, asserting federal jurisdiction. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied leave to am…
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.
Appellant-plaintiff sued to quiet title to land in Oklahoma and asserted federal jurisdiction on the ground that the controversy arose under the laws and treaties of the United States, specifically the so-called “Enid and Anadarko Act.”1 The appellee-defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. At a hearing on the motion the appellant-plaintiff sought to amend its complaint.
The appeal must be dismissed because the record contains no appealable order. At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied leave to amend and ruled that the court had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, a deputy clerk signed an order dismissing the action. The record discloses no authority for the making of such an order by the clerk. A clerk is a ministerial officer and may not assume judicial powers. The purported order of dismissal is a nullity.
An order dismissing a complaint but not dismissing the action is nonappealable.2 In Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F. 2d 809, 813-814, this court held that when a motion to dismiss a complaint is sustained and the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he should announce his election to stand on his pleading, let a final order or judgment be entered dismissing the action, and then appeal from that order or judgment. In the case at bar the plaintiff specifically requested permission to amend to set forth additional allegations establishing federal jurisdiction. In spite of the provisions of Rule 15(a), F.R.Civ.P., that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” 3 the court denied such leave. We suggest that on remand the court reconsider the application to amend and that if the application is denied the court state its reasons for such denial.
Appeal dismissed.
. Act of February 28, 1902, c. 134, 32 Stat. 43. In argument the appellant also relies on the Treaty with the Creek Indian Nation, Art. V, 14 Stat. 785, 787-788, and the Act of March 2, 1899, c. 374, 30 Stat. 990.
. Martinez v. Flores, 9 Cir., 299 F. 2d 888, 889.
. See also Wyoming Construction Compapany v. Western Casualty and Surety Company, 10 Cir., 275 F. 2d 97, 104, certiorari denied 362 U.S. 976, 80 S.Ct. 1061, 4 L.Ed.2d 1011.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Mitchell v. Parham, 345 F.2d 797 (10th Cir. 1965)
-
Butler v. Stover Bros. Trucking Co., 546 F.2d 544 (7th Cir. 1977)
-
Orvail Sherman v. Am. Fed'n OF Musicians, 588 F.2d 1313 (10th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crutcher v. Joyce, 134 F.2d 809 (10th Cir. 1943)
- I. A. Dress Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 362 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1960)
- Cepero v. Rincon de Gautier, 362 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1960)
- Wyo. Constr. Co. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 275 F.2d 97 (10th Cir. 1960)
- Martinez v. Flores, 299 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1961)