WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 21, 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 a contempt order is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 prior to the imposition of sanctions, nor is it appealable under § 1292 as an order continuing an injunction.
The Union appealed a district court's order finding it in contempt for violating a previous injunction, but the district court stayed sanctions pendin…
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 Order Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (the Union) appeals from the district court’s order finding it in contempt for continuing to violate a previous injunction upheld by this court. The district court stayed its decision on sanctions pending this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (1982).
A contempt order, is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 prior to the imposition of sanctions. See Steinert v. United States, 571 F. 2d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.1978) (dicta); Western Pacific Railroad Corp. v. Western Pacific Railroad Company, 216 F. 2d 513, 515 (9th Cir.1954). See also United States v. Hankins, 565 F. 2d 1344, 1352 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 909, 99 S.Ct. 1218, 59 L.Ed.2d 457 (1979); S.E.C. v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972).
The order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, as an appeal from an order continuing an injunction. It is not an order continuing an injunction because the district court has not yet imposed sanctions. Cf. Sanders v. Monsanto Co., 574 F. 2d 198, 199 (5th Cir.1978) (denial of contempt order appealable under section 1292 when no further action necessary in district court).
Further proceedings remain in the district court that could result in a second appeal if the instant order is affirmed. The contempt order may be reviewed effectively on appeal from the final judgment Flanagan v. United States, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 1055, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). We lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enters., Inc., 826 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1987)
-
Donovan v. Mazzola, 761 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1985)
-
In re Fugazy Express, Inc. v. Fugazy, 982 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1992)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1984)
- Bullock v. United States, 440 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1979)
- United States & Robert E. Grant v. Hankins, 565 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Naftalin, 460 F.2d 471 (8th Cir. 1972)
- Sanders v. Monsanto Co., 574 F.2d 198 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1978)
- W. Pac. R.R. Corp. & Alexis I. DuPont Bayard v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 216 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1954)