G. K. W., Inc. v. Philco Corp.

Second Circuit

G. K. W., Inc. v. Philco Corp.

276 F.2d 928

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1960

DocketNos. 227, 228, Docket 25969, 25970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 276 F.2d 928 (G. K. W., Inc. v. Philco Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

G. K. W., Inc. v. Philco Corp., 276 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these two antitrust and price-discrimination actions, the district court has entered orders of dismissal for failure to prosecute, which, however, in one case have left the action standing as to one partnership plaintiff and both defendants, and in the other case as to one partnership plaintiff and one defendant. In neither case did the court enter the determination and direction for entry of judgment requisite for finality under the express language of F.R. 54(b). Without that the judgments are not appealable. See 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1193.2 and note 56.9 (Wright Ed.); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 245, 246, and note 7 (2d Ed.1953); cf. Goldlawr v. Heiman, 2 Cir., 273 F.2d 729. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these two antitrust and price-discrimination actions, the district court has entered orders of dismissal for failure to prosecute, which, however, in one case have left the action standing as to one partnership plaintiff and both defendants, and in the other case as to one partnership plaintiff and one defendant. In neither case did the court enter the determination and direction for entry of judgment requisite for finality under the express language of F.R. 54(b). Without that the judgments are not appealable. See 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1193.2 and note 56.9 (Wright Ed.); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 245, 246, and note 7 (2d Ed.1953); cf. Goldlawr v. Heiman, 2 Cir., 273 F.2d 729. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.2d 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-k-w-inc-v-philco-corp-ca2-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack