Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout, Lauretta M. Cimijotti

Eighth Circuit

Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout, Lauretta M. Cimijotti

323 F.2d 716, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 619, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3957

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1963

Docket17444_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 323 F.2d 716 (Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout, Lauretta M. Cimijotti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout, Lauretta M. Cimijotti, 323 F.2d 716, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 619, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3957 (8th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the District Court overruling motions to require some witnesses to answer certain questions asked of them in depositions taken by the plaintiff (here appellant) for discovery purposes under Rule 26(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. The defendants (here appellees) have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of a final order or judgment. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Rulings on the propriety or impropriety of incidents of deposition-taking under Rule 26 in a pending suit are not “final decisions” within the general right of appeal provided by 28 U.S. C.A. § 1291. Whatever practically may be their significance as a matter of discovery, they do not legally dispose of the issues of the case. Like other steps of preliminary progression, or like the incidents of a trial, they cannot be made the subject of review under § 1291, except after and in relation to the terminating order or judgment in the case. Cf. Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686; Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783; Thomas French & Sons v. International Braid Co., 1 Cir., 146 F.2d 735; Dille v. Carter Oil Co., 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 318.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the District Court overruling motions to require some witnesses to answer certain questions asked of them in depositions taken by the plaintiff (here appellant) for discovery purposes under Rule 26(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. The defendants (here appellees) have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of a final order or judgment. The motion to dismiss is granted.

Rulings on the propriety or impropriety of incidents of deposition-taking under Rule 26 in a pending suit are not “final decisions” within the general right of appeal provided by 28 U.S. C.A. § 1291. Whatever practically may be their significance as a matter of discovery, they do not legally dispose of the issues of the case. Like other steps of preliminary progression, or like the incidents of a trial, they cannot be made the subject of review under § 1291, except after and in relation to the terminating order or judgment in the case. Cf. Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686; Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783; Thomas French & Sons v. International Braid Co., 1 Cir., 146 F.2d 735; Dille v. Carter Oil Co., 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 318.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 F.2d 716, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 619, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eberhard-f-cimijotti-v-frances-paulsen-clarice-sprout-lauretta-m-ca8-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack