Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Pillsbury
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Pillsbury, 154 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1946)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1946-03-18
- Topic
- employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge. In the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, appellants (Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Contractors Pacific Naval Air Bases) instituted a proceeding against appellees (Warren II. Pillsbury, Deputy Commissioner, of the United States Employees’ Compensation Commission, and Walter L. Wood) under § 21 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 921. The proceeding was instituted by the filing of a libel, which subsequently was amended.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Pillsbury. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 9 opinions
Libel for mandatory injunction by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, and Contractors Pacific Naval Air Bases, an association, against Warren H. Pillsbury, Deputy Commissioner of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission, and Walter L. Wood, under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, § 21, 33 U.S.C.A. § 921. From a decree purporting to dismiss libel, the plaintiffs appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Frank J. Hennessy, U.S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., Leavenworth Colby, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D.C., and James T. Davis, Asst. U.S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal. (Ward E. Boote, Chief Counsel, U.S. Employees' Compensation Comm., of Washington, D.C., and Herbert P. Miller, Asst. Chief Counsel, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Pillsbury.
The "order" of December 26, 1944, was a final decision, within the meaning of § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a), and hence was appealable, but no appeal was taken therefrom. On February 21, 1945, the judge signed and caused to be filed a "decree" purporting to dismiss the amended libel which, in fact, was dismissed by the "order" of December 26, 1944. From the "decree" of February 21, 1945, this appeal was taken on April 24, 1945.
As heretofore stated, the "order" of December 26, 1944, was a final decision. There was no other final decision in this case. No other final decision was necessary. The "decree" of February 21, 1945, was not a final decision and was not appealable.
Appeal dismissed.Page 560