HOLLAND FURNACE CO.

v.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Coy E. Kirtland v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., 568 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …ot based on technical considerations alone. There is serious doubt whether a Rule 54(b) certification would be appropriate under the circumstances of this ease. As the court in Panichella v. Ra. R. Co., 3 Cir. 1958, 252 F. 2d 452, 455, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 932, 80 S.Ct. 370, 4 L.Ed.2d 353, found: “[Rule] 54(b) orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel. The power which this Rule confers upon the trial judge should be used only ‘in the infrequent harsh case’ as an i…
• Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …litigation in the light of the public policy indicated by statute and rule. Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 568 F. 2d 1166, 1171 (5th Cir. 1978), quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 252 F. 2d 452, 455 (3d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 932, 80 S.Ct. 370, 4 L.Ed.2d 353. But where the claim is complete in itself and where the adjudication of that claim is also complete, Rule 54(b) certification is the appropriate channel for assuring appealability- We are at a loss to explain the distr…
• Tafford E. Oltz v. ST. Peter's Cmty. Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …he correctness of the underlying ruling in li-mine. The ruling in limine, Oltz maintains, presents a pure question of law commanding no deference to the trial court. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Springer, 269 F. 2d 805, 808 (6th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 932, 80 S.Ct. 370, 4 L.Ed.2d 353 (1960). We are unpersuaded. The incorrectness of the evidentiary ruling is little more than a point of reasoning cited in support of the district court’s finding that the awarded damages were excessive. This presents [*1…