BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CAHNERS PUBLISHING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 an order granting summary judgment on a cross-complaint is not a final appealable order without express determination of no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b).
The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendant's cross-complaint. The case remained pending in the District C…
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 Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from an order of the District Court granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s cross-complaint. The case is pending in the District Court on the Amended Complaint and the Answer thereto.
The order granting summary judgment did not expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay, as required by Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and hence is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken. Estate of Burks v. Ross (418 F. 2d 913 (6th Cir. 1969)); Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 363 F. 2d 104 (6th Cir. 1966); Gabbard v. Rose, 330 F. 2d 70S (6th Cir. 1964). The purpose of the rule was to restrict piece-meal appeals.
The Court, sua sponte, orders that the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed. If upon the remand the District Judge determines to enter an order in conformity with Rule 54(b), we will permit any appeal therefrom to be heard on the present briefs and record, supplemented by the record of the proceedings subsequent to the remand. Miles v. City of Chandler, 297 F. 2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961).
We express no opinion on what the District Court should do on the remand, as this, involves the exercise of his discretion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donovan v. Hayden, 434 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1970)
-
United States v. Walter Nugent Enters., 506 F.2d 461 (6th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Miles v. City OF Chandler, 297 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961)
- Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 363 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1966)
- Est. of Richard Burks v. Ross, 418 F.2d 913 (6th Cir. 1969)