Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta

253 F.2d 28, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3819
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided February 20, 1958·No. 13270_1·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the Court from the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties that, as appellees concede, the order of the District Court dismissing appellants’ complaint as amended and supplemented, for non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., was not a dismissal of the action and is not appeal-able, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that appellants may yet file, by leave of Court pursuant to Rule 15, an amended complaint which will meet the requirements of Rule 8;

It is ordered that the appeal is hereby dismissed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta, 253 F.2d 28, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3819 (6th Cir. 1958).

253 F.2d 28 (Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Echols v. Voisine
506 F. Supp. 15 (E.D. Michigan, 1981)
Abrams v. Carrier Corp.
434 F.2d 1234 (Second Circuit, 1970)
Abrams v. Carrier Corporation
434 F.2d 1234 (Second Circuit, 1970)
Bernard E. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank
397 F.2d 124 (Eighth Circuit, 1968)
United States v. Frank B. Killian Company
269 F.2d 491 (Sixth Circuit, 1959)