O'DELL ET AL.
v.
ESPINOZA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ESPINOZA AND AS GUARDIAN, ET AL.
Per Curiam.
Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, this Court has jurisdiction to review only “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” Because the Colorado Supreme Court remanded this case for trial, its decision is not final “as an effective determination of the litigation.” Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Cal., 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945). Although there is a limited set of situations in which we have found finality as to the federal issue despite the ordering of further proceedings in the lower state courts, see Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), this case does not fit into any of those categories. We therefore dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1982)…n was held as scheduled. Although the record does not reflect the results of the election, the United States has informed us that a runoff election was held. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10, n. 12. 28 U. S. C. §1257; O’Dell v. Espinoza, 456 U. S. 430 (1982); Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945). The Chancellor, in fact, noted that it “would have been impossible to have submitted to the Attorney General for approval until this Court had set up the mech…
-
Bell v. City OF Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984)…ent diverged from those stated in the petition. In Jones the Section 1983 claim was brought by the mother of the deceased individually and not in her capacity as administratrix. In Espinoza v. O’Dell, 633 P. 2d 455 (Colo.1981), certiorari dismissed, 456 U.S. 430, 102 S.Ct. 1865, 72 L.Ed.2d 237, one of the Section 1983 claims based upon the killing by a police officer was brought on behalf of the victim’s estate by the personal representative. Because the Colorado court remanded the case on some other issues…1 / 5
-
In re Caryl W. Riggsby v. Caryl W. Riggsby, 745 F.2d 1153 (7th Cir. 1984)…additional considerations involved in it, is the interpretation of “final” judgment in 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (review by Supreme Court of state-court decisions) as not including remands from a higher to a lower state court, see, e.g., O’Dell v. Espinoza, 456 U.S. 430, 102 S.Ct. 1865, 72 L.Ed.2d 237 (1982) (per curiam), again with exceptions not relevant here, see Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 477-85, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1037-1041, 43, 328 (1975); Abood v. Detroit Board of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 216 n. 8…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975)
- Mkt. St. Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Cal., 324 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1945)