MENGELKOCH ET AL.
v.
INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION ET AL.
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 Supreme Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from a single judge's decision after a three-judge court dissolved itself for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal in such a case lies with the appropriate Court of Appeals.
A three-judge federal court dissolved itself for lack of jurisdiction. The single district judge then dismissed the case under abstention. Appellants …
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 Abstention Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, determined that “there is no jurisdiction for a three-judge court” and entered an order dissolving itself. 284 F. Supp. 950, 956. The single district judge in whose court the case was originally filed considered further and dismissed the case without prejudice under the doctrine of abstention, stating in his memorandum opinion that “[t]he order dissolving the three-judge court is incorporated in this memorandum by reference.” 284 F. Supp. 956, 957. Appellants appeal from both judgments. In these circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the decision of the single judge; such jurisdiction is possessed only by the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Moreover, we have held that when, as here, a three-judge court dissolves itself for want of jurisdiction, an appeal lies to the appropriate Court of Appeals and not to this Court. Wilson v. Port Lavaca, 391 U. S. 352.*
Although the appellants have lodged in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a protective appeal from the decision of the single judge, it does not appear from the record that such, an appeal has been filed with respect to the three-judge order. Therefore, we vacate the order of the three-judge court and remand the case to the District Court so that a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. See Wilson v. Port Lavaca, supra; Utility Comm’n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U. S. 281, 282. The appeal from the decision of the single judge is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
*
We think it makes no difference in principle that in Wilson v. Port Lavaca the single judge actually adopted the opinion of the three-judge court as his own.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1974)…llate review available to single-judge cases in the courts of appeals. See Rosado v. Wyman, 304 F. Supp. 1354, appeal dismissed, 395 U. S. 826; Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, 284 F. Supp. 950, vacated to permit appeal to Court of Appeals, 393 U. S. 83; Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F. 2d 833, 837; American Commuters Assn. v. Levitt, 279 F. Supp. 40, aff’d, 405 F. 2d 1148; Hart v. Kennedy, 314 F. Supp. 823, 824. Where a single judge refuses to request the convention of a three-judge court, but ret…1 / 2
-
MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U.S. 799 (U.S. 1975)…ederal court fails to reach the merits of a constitutional claim for injunctive relief do not provide a consistent answer to this question. Compare Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538 (1972), with Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, 393 U. S. 83 (1968); Rosado v. Wyman, 395 U. S. 826 (1969); Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U. S. 427 (1970). See Gonzalez v. [*804] Employees Credit Union, supra, at 95 n. 11; 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 110.03 [3], pp. 76-79 (2d ed. 1973). It is certain that the c…
-
Jackson v. Hon. Emett C. Choate, 404 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1968)…. 299, 310-11 (1963) cited in Kirkland v. Wallace, 5 Cir., 1968, 403 F. 2d 420 dissent. . Nothing in Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 1968, 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 636 or more recently, in Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm., 1968, 393 U.S. 83, 84, 89 S.Ct. 60, 21 L.Ed.2d 215 [October 28, 1968] is to the contrary or suggests a contrary result, either substantive or administrative. The problem there posed which twice led to vacating orders to permit a belated appeal to the Court of Appeals…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. City OF Port Lavaca, 391 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1968)
- Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Pa. R.R. Co., 382 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1965)