Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills
This text of 73 F. App'x 278 (Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Though the district court’s decision granting partial summary judgment to the city may have the indirect effect of “refusing ... [an] injunction[ ],” see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we decline to interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1292 so broadly as to allow an interlocutory appeal that would inevitably result in “piecemeal review.” See Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
73 F. App'x 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nightlife-partners-ltd-v-city-of-beverly-hills-ca9-2003.