Julia M. Martinez v. Joseph Flores and Angela Flores

Ninth Circuit

Julia M. Martinez v. Joseph Flores and Angela Flores

299 F.2d 888, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 118, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3973

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 1961

Docket17388

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 299 F.2d 888 (Julia M. Martinez v. Joseph Flores and Angela Flores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Julia M. Martinez v. Joseph Flores and Angela Flores, 299 F.2d 888, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 118, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3973 (9th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

As in our appeal No. 16,865, Martinez v. Flores et al., which we dismissed on May 2, 1960, with a simple minute entry order, we are again of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Twice the district court has dismissed the complaint, but never the action. There is a difference. Merritt-Chapman Scott Corp. v. City of Seattle, 9 Cir., 281 F.2d 896; Turnbull v. Cyr, 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 117. And we believe observance of the distinction has a sound basis, even though in this case it may be argued it is not worth while.

The last order below just is not final. Were the judge available who signed the order from which the appeal was attempted, undoubtedly the entry of a final order would be largely ceremonial. However, another judge should not so regard it. He should make his own independent determination because the decision has not yet progressed to the point of establishing the law of the case. If the cause comes here again, we shall be reviewing the merits • of the second judge’s determination, not the first one’s. This is not to express any opinion on whether the last order attempting to dispose of the case was a correct or incorrect ruling. To do that would be premature.

The appeal is dismissed and the mandate will issue immediately.

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

ORDER

As in our appeal No. 16,865, Martinez v. Flores et al., which we dismissed on May 2, 1960, with a simple minute entry order, we are again of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Twice the district court has dismissed the complaint, but never the action. There is a difference. Merritt-Chapman Scott Corp. v. City of Seattle, 9 Cir., 281 F.2d 896; Turnbull v. Cyr, 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 117. And we believe observance of the distinction has a sound basis, even though in this case it may be argued it is not worth while.

The last order below just is not final. Were the judge available who signed the order from which the appeal was attempted, undoubtedly the entry of a final order would be largely ceremonial. However, another judge should not so regard it. He should make his own independent determination because the decision has not yet progressed to the point of establishing the law of the case. If the cause comes here again, we shall be reviewing the merits • of the second judge’s determination, not the first one’s. This is not to express any opinion on whether the last order attempting to dispose of the case was a correct or incorrect ruling. To do that would be premature.

The appeal is dismissed and the mandate will issue immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 F.2d 888, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 118, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julia-m-martinez-v-joseph-flores-and-angela-flores-ca9-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack