TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Laurence Massa v. Jiffy Products Co., Inc.

Laurence MASSA, Appellant, v. JIFFY PRODUCTS CO., Inc., Appellee

Massa v. Jiffy Prods. Co., 238 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 31, 1956
Docket
No. 14935_1
Judges
Stephens, Orr, Ross
Citations
238 F.2d 2281956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5425

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Laurence Massa is a cross-defendant in an action sounding in patent and trade-mark infringement and unfair competition, and suffered a default judgment on September 6, 1955, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. He appeals from that judgment. No judgment has been brought to our attention in the action between the original plaintiff and defendants, and there has been no express determination made in the default judgment that there is no reason to delay the entry of judgment and direction of entry of judgment as necessary under Rule 54 (b), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.

The appeal is dismissed, and in the language used in Walter W. Johnson Co. v. R. F. C., 9 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 101, 102-3 , and Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp., 9 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 386 , we further order that “If, after our mandate goes down, the District Court sees fit to make the express determination and to give the express direction mentioned in Rule 54(b) and to enter judgment in conformity therewith, and if appellant appeals from such judgment, it will not be necessary for the parties to reprint their present briefs or the present record on appeal. Such appeal, if taken, can be heard upon the present briefs and the present records, supplemented by a record of proceedings had in the District Court after receipt of our mandate. However, we are not to be understood as suggesting that the District Court should or should not make the express determination or give the express direction mentioned in Rule 54(b), these being matters exclusively within the District Court’s discretion.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11958: 11961: 11965: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Walter W. Johnson Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 223 F.2d 101 (9th Cir. 1955) 15
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp., 237 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1956) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list