J. M. YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
ETHYL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment below, as the order appealed from did not dispose of all parties and issues.
Following a prior remand, the district court denied plaintiff's motion to vacate. Plaintiff appealed this denial, but the order did not address prejud…
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 Judgment Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
August 8, 1978, this court, upon consideration of appeals Nos. 77-1807 and 77-1829, which were appeals from district court orders in the instant case, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. September 8,1978, this court denied the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Young v. Ethyl Corp., 581 F. 2d 715 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979). Upon remand plaintiff J. M. Young filed a motion to vacate, it was denied by the district court June 2, 1980, and plaintiff brought the instant appeal.
Because of our concern that the order appealed from did not deal with the issue of prejudgment and post-judgment interest which was to be determined on remand, this court by order of October 24, 1980, directed the parties to show cause, if any, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure of the order to dispose of all parties and issues as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The response of plaintiff-appellant J. M. Young is but another attempt to relitigate the original suit and a collection of general principles of appellate review. It does not address the failure of the June 2, 1980 district court order to dispose of all issues. Nor does it present any basis for an interlocutory appeal. Having considered the letter brief, this court holds that the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed for lack of a final judgment below.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wheeler Mach. Co. v. Mountain States Mineral Enters., Inc., 696 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. Philip Morris, Inc., 439 U.S. 1089 (U.S. 1979)
- Bank of Hendersonville v. Red Baron Flying Club, Inc., 439 U.S. 1089 (U.S. 1979)
- Young v. Ethyl Corp., 581 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1978)