Ethel Stone Levy v. The New York Stock Exchange and Robert W. Haack, President

Fifth Circuit

Ethel Stone Levy v. The New York Stock Exchange and Robert W. Haack, President

451 F.2d 591

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1971

Docket71-1948

StatusPublished

This text of 451 F.2d 591 (Ethel Stone Levy v. The New York Stock Exchange and Robert W. Haack, President) 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

Ethel Stone Levy v. The New York Stock Exchange and Robert W. Haack, President, 451 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

It is clear in the instant case that there is no final judgment from which plaintiff may appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Plaintiff originally brought suit against numerous parties, only a portion of whom were dismissed by the district court’s orders of December 16, 1970 and March 1, 1971.

It is, therefore, ordered in the above entitled and numbered cause that the attempted appeal from the district court’s order of December 16, 1970 and its order dismissing several of the defendants on March 1, 1971 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1

1

. See Hamman v. United States, 9th Cir. 1968, 399 F.2d 673; Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 6th Cir. 1966, 363 F.2d 104; Bush v. United Benefit Fire Ins. Co., 5th Cir. 1963, 311 F.2d 893; Miles v. City of Chandler, 9th Cir. 1961, 297 F.2d 690; Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1193.2 (Wright ed. Supp. 1970) ; Moore’s Federal Practice If 54.34 [2].

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

BY THE COURT:

It is clear in the instant case that there is no final judgment from which plaintiff may appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Plaintiff originally brought suit against numerous parties, only a portion of whom were dismissed by the district court’s orders of December 16, 1970 and March 1, 1971.

It is, therefore, ordered in the above entitled and numbered cause that the attempted appeal from the district court’s order of December 16, 1970 and its order dismissing several of the defendants on March 1, 1971 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1

1

. See Hamman v. United States, 9th Cir. 1968, 399 F.2d 673; Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 6th Cir. 1966, 363 F.2d 104; Bush v. United Benefit Fire Ins. Co., 5th Cir. 1963, 311 F.2d 893; Miles v. City of Chandler, 9th Cir. 1961, 297 F.2d 690; Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1193.2 (Wright ed. Supp. 1970) ; Moore’s Federal Practice If 54.34 [2].

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 F.2d 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ethel-stone-levy-v-the-new-york-stock-exchange-and-robert-w-haack-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack