ROBERT N. WILLIAMS AND PATRICIA M. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
A.L. BISHOP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the district court for two of three defendants named in the appellants’ suit. The action was brought to set aside a conveyance that resulted from a foreclosure by Bishop of property owned by the Williamses. The Williamses claimed that they had been defrauded by having been lulled into a belief by Bishop, who held a mortgage on their property, that he would not immediately foreclose, that he would buy the property in a foreclosure sale, if one was had, and that he would divide any profit made by reason of a subsequent sale with them. The property was later bid in by Bishop and then sold by him to the Roysters for a sum in excess of $50,000 above the cost to him.
The trial court found in favor of the Roysters, the ultimate purchasers, on their motion for summary judgment because it found that they had no knowledge or participation in any of the acts charged against Bishop. The court ordered a judgment to be entered in their favor. However, he did not enter the finding required under Rule 54(b) F.R.C.P. to the effect that there was no cause for delay.1 Upon entry of the judgment in favor of the Roysters, there still remained pending in the district court the Williams claim against Bishop and the Roysters counterclaim against the Williamses. It is clear, therefore, that the summary judgment favoring the Roysters was a judgment for “fewer than all the claims or parties.” Since our jurisdiction lies from a “final judgment” we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Ericksons, Inc., 396 F. 2d 134 (5th Cir.1968).
The appeal is DISMISSED.
. Rule 54(b) provides:
Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or a third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of a judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (185 total)
-
Luisa M. Fernandez v. Bankers Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 906 F.2d 559 (11th Cir. 1990)…v. Florian, 312 U.S. 656, 61 S.Ct. 713, 85 L.Ed. 1105 (1941) (per curiam); United States v. Horton, 622 F. 2d 144, 148 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Erickson’s, Inc., 396 F. 2d 134, 136 (5th Cir.1968); see Williams v. Bishop, 732 F. 2d 885, 886 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam). Plaintiff-appellant also has faulted Bankers for removing Perrine’s affidavit and substituting another Kindermann affidavit more favorable to its position in the second motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff-appe…
-
Garrett Hudson v. J.T. Hall, 231 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2000)…” to courts of appeal), we first must examine our own jurisdiction in this case. As a general rule, an appeal may be taken under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 only where the district court has disposed of all claims against all parties. See Williams v. Bishop, 732 F. 2d 885, 886 (11th Cir.1984) (concluding that grant of summary judgment for “fewer than all the claims or parties” is not appealable). But, an exception to the general rule exists in qualified immunity cases: “A public official may file an interlocutory ap…1 / 2
-
CSX Transp., Inc. v. The City OF Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2000)…(1945)). A judgment that does not effectively terminate the litigation is not final or immediately appealable unless the district court certifies the judgment for immediate appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Williams v. Bishop, 732 F. 2d 885, 885-86 (11th Cir.1984); In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 680 F. 2d 1338, 1339-40 (11th Cir.1982). We have held many times that a partial adjudication on the merits, followed by a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a pending…
Previewing 3 of 185 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Erickson's, Inc., 396 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1968)