IN RE CENTROTEXTIL, PETITIONER
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 a writ of prohibition is not a substitute for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a district court from proceeding with a trial, alleging lack of jurisdiction under Missouri's long-…
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 Interlocutory Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Honorable William L. Hungate, United States District Judge, from proceeding with trial of a case, No. 79-1017-C, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, wherein the district court has found jurisdiction over petitioner, allegedly a Yugoslavian concern, under Missouri’s long-arm statute. Mo.Ann.Stat. § 506.500 (Vernon). The order complained of overruled petitioner’s motion to dismiss the action against it for want of jurisdiction on April 9, 1980. Judge Hungate made no certification as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and, indeed, from the materials before us it does not appear that he was asked to do so.
The petition for writ of prohibition, filed April 18, 1980, obviously involves an attempt to seek interlocutory review. Given a proper record on the jurisdictional issue we might well entertain an interlocutory appeal. See and compare Hutson v. Fehr Bros., Inc., 584 F. 2d 833 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 983, 99 S.Ct. 573, 58 L.Ed.2d 654 (1978). However, we should not ordinarily permit use of the extraordinary writ as a substitute for the interlocutory review procedure provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), School Dist. of Kansas City v. State of Missouri, 592 F. 2d 493 (8th Cir. 1979), and we decline to do so now.
The petition is dismissed without prejudice to resort to efforts to effect an interlocutory appeal. See FRAP 5(a).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re The State OF Mo.: Christopher S. Bond, 664 F.2d 178 (8th Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- W. Side Women's Servs., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 439 U.S. 983 (U.S. 1978)
- Brainerd v. Flannery, 439 U.S. 983 (U.S. 1978)
- Sch. Dist. OF Kan. City v. The State OF Mo., 592 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1979)
- Hutson v. Fehr Bros., Inc., 584 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1978)