WILLIAM EPTON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK HOGAN ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
WILLIAM EPTON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
FRANK HOGAN ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
355 F.2d 203
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1966)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellants’ complaint, concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of New York Penal Law § 161 and other statutes, was dismissed with leave to amend. An order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a final order and therefore not appealable. See Oppenheimer v. F. J. Young & Co., Inc., 144 F. 2d 387 (2d Cir. 1944); American Broadcasting Co. v. Wahl Co., 121 F. 2d 412 (2d Cir. 1941); 6 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 54.12 at 116 (1953).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elfenbein v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc., 590 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1978)
-
The Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Fluor Corp. & Fluor Acquisition Corp., 808 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1987)
-
Lawrence I. Weisman on his own behalf v. LeLANDAIS, 532 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1976)
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
- Oppenheimer v. F. J. Young & Co., Inc., 144 F.2d 387 (2d Cir. 1944)
- Am. Broad. Co. v. Wahl Co., 121 F.2d 412 (2d Cir. 1941)