Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

General Motors Corporation, Etc. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc.

498 F.2d 327

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-08-05
Topic
estate-planning

PER CURIAM: In this action General Motors asserted claims against both Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc. and Blanche R. Bergin, executrix of the estate of Cecil A. Bergin. Although the jury was charged on the various theories of liability possibly applicable to Bergin, their verdict did not mention the claim against her. Furthermore, a careful search of the record reveals that no judgment was ever entered on this claim, although the district court did deny General Motors’ motion for a new trial against Bergin.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed General Motors Corporation, Etc. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
GENERAL MOTORS CORP. v. DADE BONDED WAREHOUSE,498 F.2d 327(5th Cir. 1974)
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DADE BONDED
WAREHOUSE, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 73-2652.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
August 5, 1974.
William G. Earle, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Harold C. Knecht, Jr., Coral Gables, Fla., for Moore Pipe Sprinkler.

Dan G. Wheeler, Jr., Miami, Fla., for Blanche R. Bergin.

Hugh L. Wood, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, Fla., for Dade Bonded Warehouse.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In this action General Motors asserted claims against both Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc. and Blanche R. Bergin, executrix of the estate of Cecil A. Bergin. Although the jury was charged on the various theories of liability possibly applicable to Bergin, their verdict did not mention the claim against her. Furthermore, a careful search of the record reveals that no judgment was ever entered on this claim, although the district court did deny General Motors' motion for a new trial against Bergin. Thus the judgment fails to adjudicateallthe claims and liabilities ofallthe parties, as required by F.R.Civ.P.54(b). No certificate under F.R.Civ.P.54(b) appears in the record. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.Page 32811 C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2781; F.R. Civ.P.58;28 U.S.C. § 1291.See, e.g.,Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974,494 F.2d 45; Foret v. McDermott, 5 Cir. 1973,484 F.2d 992.See also,United States v. Indrelunas, 1973,411 U.S. 216,93 S.Ct. 1562,36 L.Ed.2d 202; State National Bank of El Paso v. United States, 5 Cir. 1974,488 F.2d 890.

[2] Should the district court enter a new judgment on General Motors' claim against Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., and issue the Rule 54(b) certificate, the appeal from that judgment may be submitted on the record and briefs prepared for this appeal, supplemented by the new judgment and certificate, and on the oral arguments heretofore heard.

[3] Dismissed.