Robert M. Dailey and Fred J. Dailey v. David Lee Timmer and Robert Pakulski

Third Circuit

Robert M. Dailey and Fred J. Dailey v. David Lee Timmer and Robert Pakulski

292 F.2d 824, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 974, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3952

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 1961

Docket13512

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 292 F.2d 824 (Robert M. Dailey and Fred J. Dailey v. David Lee Timmer and Robert Pakulski) 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

Robert M. Dailey and Fred J. Dailey v. David Lee Timmer and Robert Pakulski, 292 F.2d 824, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 974, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3952 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial entered by a judge for the District Court for the V^estern District of Pennsylvania. Met with the statute 28 U.S.C. § 1291 which gives Courts of Appeals jurisdiction of all final decisions of District Courts (with certain exceptions not relevant here), the appellant urges upon us our own decision in Lind v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 3 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 79. That case has no bearing here. This Court, in that case, had jurisdiction because there was an appeal from a judgment N.O.Y. The new trial action was incidental to the main point.

The 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.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial entered by a judge for the District Court for the V^estern District of Pennsylvania. Met with the statute 28 U.S.C. § 1291 which gives Courts of Appeals jurisdiction of all final decisions of District Courts (with certain exceptions not relevant here), the appellant urges upon us our own decision in Lind v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 3 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 79. That case has no bearing here. This Court, in that case, had jurisdiction because there was an appeal from a judgment N.O.Y. The new trial action was incidental to the main point.

The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 F.2d 824, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 974, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-m-dailey-and-fred-j-dailey-v-david-lee-timmer-and-robert-pakulski-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack