Benada Aluminum Products Company v. The Home Insurance Company

Fifth Circuit

Benada Aluminum Products Company v. The Home Insurance Company

368 F.2d 1001, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1966

Docket23734

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 1001 (Benada Aluminum Products Company v. The Home Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benada Aluminum Products Company v. The Home Insurance Company, 368 F.2d 1001, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4323 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The complaint presented four separate and identified claims, I through IV inclusive, against the Defendant Insurance Company. On trial by the Court alone, the Court found the Insurer not liable under claims I, III, and IV, but liable under claim II with the issue of damages severed, F.R.Civ.P. 42(b). Plaintiff appeals with respect to the adverse decision regarding liability on claims I, III, and IV. On motion to dismiss the appeal by the Insurer, we must grant it since there has been no determination in compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

This means that the District Court’s decision on claims I, III, and IV is subject to change by it until the final judgment disposing of all claims and all counts is entered. This is without prejudice to the Appellant seeking reconsideration by the District Court for possible certification by the District Court under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or for certification of the question as an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b).

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The complaint presented four separate and identified claims, I through IV inclusive, against the Defendant Insurance Company. On trial by the Court alone, the Court found the Insurer not liable under claims I, III, and IV, but liable under claim II with the issue of damages severed, F.R.Civ.P. 42(b). Plaintiff appeals with respect to the adverse decision regarding liability on claims I, III, and IV. On motion to dismiss the appeal by the Insurer, we must grant it since there has been no determination in compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

This means that the District Court’s decision on claims I, III, and IV is subject to change by it until the final judgment disposing of all claims and all counts is entered. This is without prejudice to the Appellant seeking reconsideration by the District Court for possible certification by the District Court under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or for certification of the question as an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 1001, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benada-aluminum-products-company-v-the-home-insurance-company-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack