In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm

First Circuit

In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm

852 F.2d 805, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 101, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11306, 1988 WL 80239

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 1988

Docket88-3489

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 852 F.2d 805 (In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm, 852 F.2d 805, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 101, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11306, 1988 WL 80239 (1st Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The instant motion for a stay pending appeal is before this Court following its denial in the first instance in the district court. In denying appellant’s motion, the district court concluded that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s request for a stay due to the fact that appellant filed a notice of appeal prior to requesting a stay.

After reviewing the pertinent authorities in this area, we are persuaded that the district court retained jurisdiction to grant appellant’s request for a stay despite the fact that a notice of appeal to this Court was filed prior to the request for a stay. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62; 9 Moore’s Federal Practice 11208.05. Such a conclusion is consistent with the general principle that an application for a stay of the judgment or order of a district court should ordinarily be made in the first instance in the district court. Fed.R.App.P. 8(a).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED without prejudice to the appellant’s right again to seek a stay from the district court.

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

PER CURIAM:

The instant motion for a stay pending appeal is before this Court following its denial in the first instance in the district court. In denying appellant’s motion, the district court concluded that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s request for a stay due to the fact that appellant filed a notice of appeal prior to requesting a stay.

After reviewing the pertinent authorities in this area, we are persuaded that the district court retained jurisdiction to grant appellant’s request for a stay despite the fact that a notice of appeal to this Court was filed prior to the request for a stay. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62; 9 Moore’s Federal Practice 11208.05. Such a conclusion is consistent with the general principle that an application for a stay of the judgment or order of a district court should ordinarily be made in the first instance in the district court. Fed.R.App.P. 8(a).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED without prejudice to the appellant’s right again to seek a stay from the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

852 F.2d 805, 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 101, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11306, 1988 WL 80239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-edmond-g-miranne-sr-debtor-edmond-g-miranne-sr-v-ca1-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack