Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Co.

Third Circuit

Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Co.

355 F.2d 553

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided December 8, 1965·No. Nos. 15184, 15185·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On motion, the district court entered an order vacating a default judgment and at the same time refusing to quash, service. At this intermediate stage of the litigation the plaintiffs have appealed from the vacating of the default judgment and the defendants have taken a cross-appeal from the refusal to quash service.

We have recently held that an order vacating a default judgment is not final within the meaning of section 1291 of Title 28, United States Code, and, therefore, cannot support an immediate appeal. Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 1962, 307 F.2d 73. Similarly, a refusal to quash service is not an appealable final order.

The appeal and the cross-appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM:

On motion, the district court entered an order vacating a default judgment and at the same time refusing to quash, service. At this intermediate stage of the litigation the plaintiffs have appealed from the vacating of the default judgment and the defendants have taken a cross-appeal from the refusal to quash service.

We have recently held that an order vacating a default judgment is not final within the meaning of section 1291 of Title 28, United States Code, and, therefore, cannot support an immediate appeal. Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 1962, 307 F.2d 73. Similarly, a refusal to quash service is not an appealable final order.

The appeal and the cross-appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Co., 355 F.2d 553 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

355 F.2d 553 (Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related