ELSIE HAMMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WASHINGTON IRON WORKS, ET AL., APPELLEES; ARLENE HARTUNG REED, ETC., APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WASHINGTON IRON WORKS, ET AL., APPELLEES; ANNA LOYNING, ETC., APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WASHINGTON IRON WORKS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 dismissal order was not a final decision and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment dismissing Count III of their Third Amended Complaints for failure to state a cause of action under the Clayton…
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 Decision Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
Three cases are before this court, consolidated on appeal, from a summary judgment dismissing Count III of plaintiffs’ respective Third Amended Complaints, for failure to state a cause of action under the Clayton Act. (15 U.S.C. § 15.)
The document dismissing the Third Cause of Action in the Third Amended Complaint was “with prejudice and on the merits,” (C.T. 73). It was denominated “Partial Judgment.” By its terms, both in its title and body, it was not “a final decision.” (28 U.S.C. § 1291.) No statement that the order involved a controlling question of law was stated in such order. (28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).) It is not an order falling within § 1292(a). Cf. Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. We therefore are compelled to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. CMAX, Inc. v. Drewry Photocolor Co., 295 F. 2d 695 (9th Cir. 1962); King v. California Co., 236 F. 2d 413 (5th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 1007, 77 S.Ct. 569, 1 L.Ed.2d 551 (1967) District 65 v. McKague, 216 F. 2d 153 (3d Cir. 1954).
A dismissal of a cause of action as to certain defendants only is not appealable in absence of express determination of the trial court that there was no just reason for delay. Steiner v. 20th Cent.-Fox Film Corp., 220 F. 2d 105 (9th Cir. 1955); Miles v. City of Chandler, 297 F. 2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961); Perry v. Bammar, 330 F. 2d 240 (9th Cir. 1964); Baca Land & Cattle Co. v. New Mexico Timber, Inc., 384 F. 2d 701 (10th Cir. 1967).
The trial court cannot by certificate make final and appealable a ruling which is not final and appealable under § 1291. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 at 437, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956).
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1972)
-
Build OF Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita, 441 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1971)
-
Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sears v. MacKey, 351 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1956)
- Dist. 65 v. McKAGUE, 216 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1954)
- Selma Steiner v. 20TH Century-Fox Film Corp., 220 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Cmax, Inc. v. Drewry Photocolor Corp., 295 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1961)
- Miles v. City OF Chandler, 297 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961)
- King v. The Cal. Co., 236 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Baca Land & Cattle Co. & Dunigan Tool & Supply Co. v. NEW Mexico Timber, Inc., 384 F.2d 701 (10th Cir. 1967)
- Hill v. United States, 352 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1957)
- Scalley v. Ellis, 352 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1957)
- Perry v. Bammar, 330 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1964)