Edward L. Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corporation
449 F.2d 1296, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7423, 1972 A.M.C. 2119
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 26, 1971·No. 71-2160·Published·Cited by 8 cases
Opinion
Appellee’s motion to dismiss this . appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted. The granting of a motion for a mistrial is not a final order which terminates the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Gilmore v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 44, 45. Finality is necessary to bring the order within our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291.
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Edward L. Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, 449 F.2d 1296, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7423, 1972 A.M.C. 2119 (5th Cir. 1971).
449 F.2d 1296 (Edward L. Esneault v. Waterman Steamship Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Spina v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County
207 F. Supp. 2d 764 (N.D. Illinois, 2002)
Mann v. Hutchinson
Tenth Circuit, 1999
Sheffield v. Larsen
Tenth Circuit, 1998
Paul Sheffield v. Bill Larsen, Individually and in His Official Capacity Brad Blair, Individually and in His Official Capacity
153 F.3d 728 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Carlson v. Locatelli
849 P.2d 313 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1993)
Amy Barkoo v. Brian Melby, Individually and in His Capacity as Communications Coordinator of the Village of Skokie
901 F.2d 613 (Seventh Circuit, 1990)
Hairlox Co., Inc. v. McDonald
557 A.2d 163 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
Martinez v. Winner
548 F. Supp. 278 (D. Colorado, 1982)