Schramm v. Murdock-Salyer Chevrolet Co.

Tenth Circuit

Schramm v. Murdock-Salyer Chevrolet Co.

312 F.2d 249

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided December 19, 1962·No. No. 6996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained because the record contains no final judgment disposing of the claim asserted by the appellants against the appellees. We suggest that on remand the district court reconsider its order on the motions to quash in the light of such decisions as Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Railway Express Agency, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 780, 784; and in the light of the principles stated in 1A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 355, p. 352; and 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 12.16, p. 222 of 1961 supplement. Time for appeal of any judgment entered after remand shall run from the entry of that judgment.

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

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained because the record contains no final judgment disposing of the claim asserted by the appellants against the appellees. We suggest that on remand the district court reconsider its order on the motions to quash in the light of such decisions as Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Railway Express Agency, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 780, 784; and in the light of the principles stated in 1A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 355, p. 352; and 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 12.16, p. 222 of 1961 supplement. Time for appeal of any judgment entered after remand shall run from the entry of that judgment.

Schramm v. Murdock-Salyer Chevrolet Co., 312 F.2d 249 (10th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

312 F.2d 249 (Schramm v. Murdock-Salyer Chevrolet Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related