E. R. SQUIBB & SONS
v.
MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS
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.
E. R. Squibb & Sons appealed a decree, but failed to properly present assignments of error as required by appellate rules, leading the Circuit Court of Appeals to certify questions about whether it could affirm the lower court's decree despite the defective pleadings. The Supreme Court held that where an appeal is properly before the court and the appellant abandons its assignments of error, the court may affirm the lower court's decree without dismissing the appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The Circuit Court of Appeals has certified the following questions:
“ Question 1. Where, on an appeal properly in this court, the appellee contends that one of the assignments of errors has been abandoned and all others are not presentable because defective either as assignments of errors or as specifications of errors and urges affirmance of the decree appealed from and this court determines that such contention is well founded in all respects and that no issue on the merits is, for such reasons, presentable to it, is it proper to affirm the decree appealed from? “ Question 2. If question 1 should be answered in the negative, should the order of this court be a dismissal without prejudice? ”
Where an appellant fails to file assignments of error as required by the applicable rule (28 U. S. C. 862, 880; Rule No. 11 of the Rules of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit), the appeal may be dismissed. Compare Rules of this Court No. 9 and No. 27, pars. 4, 5. But where an appeal is properly before the Court and, upon hearing the appeal, the Court determines that such assignments of error as have been duly filed have been abandoned, the Court may affirm the decree from which the appeal is taken.
Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1944)…e hundred and eighty-seven findings of fact contained in one hundred and twenty printed pages. Hence they are the only ones we will consider. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 287 U. S. 86, 91; E. R. Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 293 U. S. 190; Rule 9, 275 U. S. 600. We have examined them and conclude that they do not constitute reversible error. If any modifications were made in these subsidiary findings they would not be basic or essential ones. [*181] The crux of the government’s case…
-
The State OF Tex. v. Grundstrom, 404 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1968)…t will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.’ Liver [*649] pool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Emigration Comrs., 113 U.S. 33, 39 [5 S.Ct. 352, 28 L.Ed. 899, 901]; Abrams v. Van Schaick, 293 U.S. 188 [55 S.Ct. 135, 79 L.Ed. 278]; Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U.S. 100 [55 S.Ct. 673, 79 L.Ed. 1329]. ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.’ Burton v. United…
-
Patrick v. United States, 77 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1935)…ited States has moved to dismiss on that ground. The motion should be granted, unless there is a plain and serious errór which the court should notice without an assignment thereof.” E. R. Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 293 U. S. 190, 55 S. Ct. 135, 79 L. Ed.-. The filing of the assignments of error with' the notice of appeal, however, is not jurisdictional and notwithstanding the failure to file such assignments this court may, in case of plain error and in furtherance of justice, consider a…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence