Harlan Lane v. Douglas Graves

Eighth Circuit

Harlan Lane v. Douglas Graves

518 F.2d 965, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 494, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14294

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1975

Docket75-1188

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 518 F.2d 965 (Harlan Lane v. Douglas Graves) 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

Harlan Lane v. Douglas Graves, 518 F.2d 965, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 494, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14294 (8th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a- district court order, Harlan Lane and other individual plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 29, 1973, amending and consolidating three separate diversity actions against Union National Bank, La-Co, Inc., and six individual defendants, in which they sought compensatory and punitive damages in amounts exceeding $10,000. The amended and consolidated complaint contained five claims for relief, the most pertinent of which sought relief in favor of Lane as an individual.

On April 29, 1974, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to join the appellee Douglas Graves as an additional party defendant in the claim cited above. The appellee did not oppose the plaintiffs’ motion, but rather, on July 19, 1974, he moved to dismiss the complaint as to him on the ground the action against him was barred by the applicable state statute of limitations. The district court agreed and on January 29, 1975, it dismissed the complaint against the appellee, leaving the complaint outstanding as to the remaining defendants. It is from this order that Lane has appealed.

Although the jurisdiction of this court has not been questioned by the parties, this court has a duty “to satisfy itself as to its jurisdiction to consider an appeal . . . .” Stewart v. Bishop, 403 F.2d 674, 677 (8th Cir. 1968); see, e. g., United States v. June, 503 F.2d 442, 444-145 (8th Cir. 1974). The record in this case reveals that Lane’s appeal is premature. The district court’s judgment was interlocutory since it resolved the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties to the action and the district court did not make (1) “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay” and (2) “an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e. g., Wooten v. First National Bank, 490 F.2d 1275, 1276 (8th Cir. 1974); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 54.28 and 54.34[2. — 2] (2d ed. 1974). Thus this court lacks jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a- district court order, Harlan Lane and other individual plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 29, 1973, amending and consolidating three separate diversity actions against Union National Bank, La-Co, Inc., and six individual defendants, in which they sought compensatory and punitive damages in amounts exceeding $10,000. The amended and consolidated complaint contained five claims for relief, the most pertinent of which sought relief in favor of Lane as an individual.

On April 29, 1974, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to join the appellee Douglas Graves as an additional party defendant in the claim cited above. The appellee did not oppose the plaintiffs’ motion, but rather, on July 19, 1974, he moved to dismiss the complaint as to him on the ground the action against him was barred by the applicable state statute of limitations. The district court agreed and on January 29, 1975, it dismissed the complaint against the appellee, leaving the complaint outstanding as to the remaining defendants. It is from this order that Lane has appealed.

Although the jurisdiction of this court has not been questioned by the parties, this court has a duty “to satisfy itself as to its jurisdiction to consider an appeal . . . .” Stewart v. Bishop, 403 F.2d 674, 677 (8th Cir. 1968); see, e. g., United States v. June, 503 F.2d 442, 444-145 (8th Cir. 1974). The record in this case reveals that Lane’s appeal is premature. The district court’s judgment was interlocutory since it resolved the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties to the action and the district court did not make (1) “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay” and (2) “an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e. g., Wooten v. First National Bank, 490 F.2d 1275, 1276 (8th Cir. 1974); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 54.28 and 54.34[2. — 2] (2d ed. 1974). Thus this court lacks jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Paul F. Sargent v. Roger T. Johnson, Architect, and Axel H. Ohman, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Preston Haglin Co., a Minnesota Corporation, Paul F. Sargent v. Roger T. Johnson, Architect, and Axel H. Ohman, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Fourth-Party Above Named on Behalf of and in the Name of Preston Haglin Co., a Minnesota Corporation, Insured of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company at the Trial Herein and Third-Party Paul F. Sargent v. Roger T. Johnson, Architect, and Axel H. Ohman, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

521 F.2d 1260 (Third Circuit, 1975)

Sargent v. Johnson

521 F.2d 1260 (Eighth Circuit, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 F.2d 965, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 494, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlan-lane-v-douglas-graves-ca8-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack