J. M. Young v. Ethyl Corporation

Eighth Circuit

J. M. Young v. Ethyl Corporation

635 F.2d 681, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11817

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1980

Docket80-1589

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 635 F.2d 681 (J. M. Young v. Ethyl Corporation) 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

J. M. Young v. Ethyl Corporation, 635 F.2d 681, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11817 (8th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

August 8, 1978, this court, upon consideration of appeals Nos. 77-1807 and 77-1829, which were appeals from district court orders in the instant case, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. September 8,1978, this court denied the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Young v. Ethyl Corp., 581 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979). Upon remand plaintiff J. M. Young filed a motion to vacate, it was denied by the district court June 2, 1980, and plaintiff brought the instant appeal.

Because of our concern that the order appealed from did not deal with the issue of prejudgment and post-judgment interest which was to be determined on remand, this court by order of October 24, 1980, directed the parties to show cause, if any, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure of the order to dispose of all parties and issues as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The response of plaintiff-appellant J. M. Young is but another attempt to relitigate the original suit and a collection of general principles of appellate review. It does not address the failure of the June 2, 1980 district court order to dispose of all issues. *682 Nor does it present any basis for an interlocutory appeal. Having considered the letter brief, this court holds that the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed for lack of a final judgment below.

It is so ordered.

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

ORDER

August 8, 1978, this court, upon consideration of appeals Nos. 77-1807 and 77-1829, which were appeals from district court orders in the instant case, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. September 8,1978, this court denied the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Young v. Ethyl Corp., 581 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979). Upon remand plaintiff J. M. Young filed a motion to vacate, it was denied by the district court June 2, 1980, and plaintiff brought the instant appeal.

Because of our concern that the order appealed from did not deal with the issue of prejudgment and post-judgment interest which was to be determined on remand, this court by order of October 24, 1980, directed the parties to show cause, if any, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure of the order to dispose of all parties and issues as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The response of plaintiff-appellant J. M. Young is but another attempt to relitigate the original suit and a collection of general principles of appellate review. It does not address the failure of the June 2, 1980 district court order to dispose of all issues. *682 Nor does it present any basis for an interlocutory appeal. Having considered the letter brief, this court holds that the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed for lack of a final judgment below.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 F.2d 681, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-m-young-v-ethyl-corporation-ca8-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack