DENNIS D. DONOVAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
HAYDEN, STONE, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

6th Cir. | 1970-11-27
No. 20295
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
434 F.2d 619 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 18 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the appeal must be dismissed because the district court's order was not a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.


Facts & Procedural History

Following an Ohio judgment, an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding was initiated against Donovan. Donovan sued Hayden, Stone for malicious prosecution, …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss the appeal in this case sua sponte because the decision of the District Court is not a final appealable order. An Ohio State court rendered judgment against appellant, Donovan, and in favor of appellee, Hayden, Stone, Inc., on a promissory note. In connection with the transaction involving the note, Hayden, Stone initiated an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against Donovan, which was dismissed. All of the relief sought by Donovan against Hayden, Stone in the present case grows out of circumstances incident to these transactions, including a claim for damages for malicious prosecution.

Hayden, Stone moved to strike and dismiss the complaint. The District Judge granted the motion in part and struck certain paragraphs. The motion to dismiss the claimed malicious prosecution of the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding was denied, and that part of the proceeding remains pending in the District Court.

Donovan appeals from those parts of the order of the District Court striking other paragraphs of the complaint.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction only from final decisions of the United States District Courts. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal when it terminates all issues presented in the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to be done except to enforce by execution what has been determined. Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 429, 30 S.Ct. 539, 54 L.Ed. 821; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. R.R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28, 2 S.Ct. 6, 27 L. Ed. 638; City of Louisa v. Levi, 140 F. 2d 512 (6th Cir.).

By the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Congress has expressed its policy against piecemeal appeals. This policy has been applied repeatedly by the Supreme Court and by this Court. Switzerland Cheese Association v. E. Horne’s Market, 385 U.S. 23, 24, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23; Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 83 S.Ct. 1236, 10 L.Ed.2d 383; Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, Inc., 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, 99 L.Ed. 233; McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 12 S.Ct. 118, 35 L. Ed. 893; Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Johnson, 269 F. 2d 835 (6th Cir.).

The order of the District Court in the present case does not come within the provisions of Rule 54(b), Fed. R.Civ.P. The District Court did not make “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay” or “an express direction for the entry of the judgment.” Accordingly the order is not appealable and the appeal must be dismissed. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297; Business Communications, Inc. v. Cahners Publishing Co., 420 F. 2d 535 (6th Cir.); Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 363 F. 2d 104 (6th Cir.); Woodby v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. Co., 345 F. 2d 668 (6th Cir.).

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the right of parties to raise on any future appeal from a final judgment all issues which they have undertaken to raise on the present appeal.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw