James A. Hodgson v. U. S. Slicing MacHine Company, Inc., and Lasar Manufacturing Company, Inc

Third Circuit

James A. Hodgson v. U. S. Slicing MacHine Company, Inc., and Lasar Manufacturing Company, Inc

370 F.2d 565, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1287, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1967

Docket16077

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 370 F.2d 565 (James A. Hodgson v. U. S. Slicing MacHine Company, Inc., and Lasar Manufacturing Company, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James A. Hodgson v. U. S. Slicing MacHine Company, Inc., and Lasar Manufacturing Company, Inc, 370 F.2d 565, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1287, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant brought this products liability personal injury suit against the distributor of the product involved and its manufacturer. Proper service of process was obtained against the distributor, U. S. Slicing Machine Company, Inc. The legality of the service made upon the manufacturer was disputed. On June 23, 1965, the latter moved to dismiss the complaint as to it. On July 9, 1965 answer of U. S. Slicing Machine was filed and on October 1, 1965, it filed its answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories. On June 24, 1966, Lasar Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it was granted. On June 29, 1966 plaintiff filed his notice of appeal from that order. No application was made to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for an order stating that the dismissal order involved a controlling question of law, etc. and that an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

The order dismissing one of the two defendants from this suit was clearly an interlocutory order which under the facts was unappealable. We have therefore no jurisdiction in the circumstances.

The appeal in this cause will be dismissed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant brought this products liability personal injury suit against the distributor of the product involved and its manufacturer. Proper service of process was obtained against the distributor, U. S. Slicing Machine Company, Inc. The legality of the service made upon the manufacturer was disputed. On June 23, 1965, the latter moved to dismiss the complaint as to it. On July 9, 1965 answer of U. S. Slicing Machine was filed and on October 1, 1965, it filed its answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories. On June 24, 1966, Lasar Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it was granted. On June 29, 1966 plaintiff filed his notice of appeal from that order. No application was made to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for an order stating that the dismissal order involved a controlling question of law, etc. and that an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

The order dismissing one of the two defendants from this suit was clearly an interlocutory order which under the facts was unappealable. We have therefore no jurisdiction in the circumstances.

The appeal in this cause will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F.2d 565, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1287, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-a-hodgson-v-u-s-slicing-machine-company-inc-and-lasar-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack