Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Essie H. Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co.

273 F.2d 422

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1959-12-30
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In this suit under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, the district court dismissed for want of jurisdiction the suit against Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company as its policy limit ($5,000) was not sufficient to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (1). As the case involved a single claim asserted against multiple defendants with the dismissal as to some leaving a suit remaining as to others, the order was interlocutory, not final, and the appeal must be dismissed. Reagan v. Traders & General Ins.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Essie H. Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
JEWELL v. GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,273 F.2d 422(5th Cir. 1959)
Essie H. JEWELL, Appellant, v. GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
Appellee.
No. 17755.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 30, 1959.
Milton L. LeBlanc, Jr., New Iberia, La., Morris B. Phillips, New Orleans, La., Johnson LeBlanc, New Iberia, La., for appellant.

John P. Hammond, New Orleans, La., Richard B. Montgomery, Montgomery, Barnett, Brown Read, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellee.
Before JONES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this suit under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, the district court dismissed for want of jurisdiction the suit against Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company as its policy limit ($5,000) was not sufficient to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement of28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a)(1). As the case involved a single claim asserted against multiple defendants with the dismissal as to some leaving a suit remaining as to others, the order was interlocutory, not final, and the appeal must be dismissed. Reagan v. Traders General Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1958,255 F.2d 845; Meadows v. Greyhound Corp., 5 Cir., 1956,235 F.2d 233. This does not preclude the appellant from applying to the district court for an order permitting an appeal to be taken as is authorized by28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b). Ex parte Deepwater Exploration Co., 5 Cir., 1958,260 F.2d 546; Ex parte Watkins, 5 Cir., 1958,260 F.2d 548.

Appeal dismissed.Page 423