Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Gerald Ray v. Texaco, Inc., Defendants-Third Party v. Noble Drilling Corporation, Third Party

Gerald Ray v. Texaco, Inc., Defendants-Third Party v. Noble Drilling Corp., Third Party, 488 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1973)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1973-12-18
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: The entry of judgment in the within matter adjudicated 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. International Harvester Credit Corporation v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gerald Ray v. Texaco, Inc., Defendants-Third Party v. Noble Drilling Corporation, Third Party. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

RAY v. TEXACO, INC.,488 F.2d 1087(5th Cir. 1973)

GERALD RAY, PLAINTIFF, v. TEXACO, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-THIRD PARTY

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. NOBLE DRILLING CORPORATION, THIRD PARTY

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

No. 73-2962.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 18, 1973.

Page 1088

Fred E. Salley, Frank C. Allen, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

James E. Blazek, Joel L. Borrello, New Orleans, La., for Noble Drilling Corp.

Joel T. Chaisson, Luling, La., for Gerald W. Ray.

Stephen J. Hornyak, Dominick Savona, Jr., Gretna, La., for Pan Mar Services.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] The entry of judgment in the within matter adjudicated 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. International Harvester Credit Corporation v. Belding, 5 Cir., 1972,462 F.2d 624; 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 1090

Rule 18, 5 Cir. see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩