Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Edward R. Belding

Int’l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Edward R. Belding, 462 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-21
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The entry of judgment in the within matter adjudicated fewer than all of the claims, and the liabilities of fewer than all of the parties in and to the litigation. There has been no entry of final judgment by the district court upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay as is required by Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.Procedure. Hence, the judgment lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Bailey v. Rowan Drilling Company, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 57; Cook v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Edward R. Belding. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CREDIT CORP v. BELDING,462 F.2d 624(5th Cir. 1972)
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CREDIT CORPORATION ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v.
EDWARD R. BELDING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1021.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 21, 1972.
Page 625
Danny Cupti, Dixon L. Pyles, Pyles Tucker, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., Fountain D. Dawson, Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy Baab, Inc., by Beverly N. Ballantine, Greenville, Miss., Thomas F. Phalen, Jr., W.C. Smith, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for Teamsters Local Union No. 891.

Lawrence J. Frank, Jackson, Miss., R. Ian Hunter, Detroit, Mich., Sorrell Logothetis, Jackson, Miss., Knee, Snyder Parks, Dayton, Ohio, for Teamsters Local Union No. 654.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The entry of judgment in the within matter adjudicated fewer than all of the claims, and the liabilities of fewer than all of the parties in and to the litigation. There has been no entry of final judgment by the district court upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay as is required by Rule54(b), F.R.Civ.Procedure. Hence, the judgment lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Bailey v. Rowan Drilling Company, 5 Cir., 1971,441 F.2d 57; Cook v. Eizenman, 5 Cir., 1963,312 F.2d 134.

[2] Dismissed.Page 634
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩