Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp.

315 F.2d 626

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1963-01-26
Topic: general

ORDER. Upon consideration of the motion by appellees to dismiss the appeal in the above entitled case, of the memoranda in support of and in opposition to the motion, and after hearing, and it appearing that Sec. 1292 of Title 28 U.S.C. does not provide statutory authority for the review of an interlocutory order of the nature sought to be reviewed in this case. It is ORDERED that the appeal be and it hereby is dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; It is FURTHER ORDERED that treating the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition the writ be and it hereby is denied.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 12 opinions

STANDARD v. STOLL PACKING CORPORATION,315 F.2d 626(3rd Cir. 1963)

Paula STANDARD and Saundra Standard, minors, by their guardian, Allen W.

Standard, and Allen W. Standard and Alvis B. Standard, parents of said

minors, in their own right, and Alvis B. Standard, in her own right, and

Allen W. Standard, her husband, and Allen W. Standard, in his own right,

Appellants, v. STOLL PACKING CORPORATION and Polar Truck Rental

Corporation v. Allen W. STANDARD.

No. 14293.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 26, 1963.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1963.

Before STALEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SHAW, District Judge.

ORDER.

Upon consideration of the motion by appellees to dismiss the appeal in the above entitled case, of the memoranda in support of and in opposition to the motion, and after hearing, and it appearing that Sec. 1292 of Title 28 U.S.C. does not provide statutory authority for the review of an interlocutory order of the nature sought to be reviewed in this case.

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and it hereby is dismissed for want of jurisdiction;

It is FURTHER ORDERED that treating the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition the writ be and it hereby is denied.Page 627