Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta
Sol A. DANN, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STUDEBAKER-PACKARD CORPORATION, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta, Defendants-Appellees
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry, and A. J. Porta
- Bernard E. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank
- United States v. Frank B. Killian Company
- Abrams v. Carrier Corp.
- Echols v. Voisine
- William Konrad Elrich v. Veterans Administration Regional Office (Varo)
Most recent
- William Konrad Elrich v. Veterans Administration Regional Office (Varo)
- Echols v. Voisine
- Abrams v. Carrier Corp.
- Bernard E. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank
- Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry, and A. J. Porta
- United States v. Frank B. Killian Company
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.