Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Curlee Bowers v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, a Corporation

Curlee Bowers v. St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., a Corp., 668 F.2d 369 (8th Cir. 1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-12-29
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-appellant Curlee Bowers appeals from an order of the district court 1 conditioning the voluntary dismissal of his action upon the requirement that the suit, if refiled, be commenced in either the state or federal courts of Arkansas. See Fed.R. Civ.P. 41(a)(2). We dismiss the appeal.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Curlee Bowers v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, a Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
BOWERS v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.,668 F.2d 369(8th Cir. 1981)
CURLEE BOWERS, APPELLANT, v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A
CORPORATION, APPELLEE.
No. 81-1810.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted December 22, 1981.
Decided December 29, 1981.
Certiorari Denied April 26, 1982.
Paul L. Pratt, P.C., by Randolph E. Schum and Philip B. Alfeld, East Alton, Ill., for Curlee Bowers, appellant.

John G. Lile, Pine Bluff, Ark., for St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Before HEANEY, HENLEY and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Plaintiff-appellant Curlee Bowers appeals from an order of the district court1conditioning the voluntary dismissal of his action upon the requirement that the suit, if refiled, be commenced in either the state or federal courts of Arkansas.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(2). We dismiss the appeal.

[2] As a general rule, no appeal by the moving plaintiff will lie from an order granting a voluntary dismissal.E.g., ManagementInvestors v. United Mine Workers,610 F.2d 384,393(6th Cir. 1979);Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc.,580 F.2d 126,129(5th Cir. 1978),cert. denied,440 U.S. 915,99 S.Ct. 1231,59 L.Ed.2d 464(1979).See generally 5 J. Moore Federal Practice¶ 41.05[3] (2d ed. 1975). In the case of conditional voluntary dismissal orders, however, an exceptionPage 370has been recognized where the plaintiff is legally prejudiced by the conditions accompanying the grant of dismissal and no acquiescence in those conditions has been evidenced on his part.LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,603-04(5th Cir. 1976);see Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc., supra,580 F.2d at 130. Even assuming this exception to the general rule to be applicable in this circuit, Bowers has failed to satisfy the two prerequisites to appealability. The condition appended to the dismissal order did not "legally prejudice" Bowers; although restricting to a certain degree his right to refile this action, it does not "severely circumscribe" his ability to actually reinitiate the suit.Compare LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., supra,528 F.2d at 603-05;Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc.,580 F.2d at 130-31.Cf. Scholl v. Felmont Oil Corp.,327 F.2d 697,700(6th Cir. 1964) (dismissal conditioned in part upon requirement that suit, if refiled, be refiled in same court was not "unreasonable"). Moreover, the record discloses no opposition to the condition by Bowers in the district court.Compare Yoffe,supra,580 F.2d at 130;LeCompte, supra,528 F.2d at 604. In these particular circumstances, we conclude that the order of dismissal is not appealable by Bowers. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.See8th Cir.R. 12.
  1. The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. ↩