Essie H. Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co.
Essie H. JEWELL, Appellant, v. GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this suit under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, the district court dismissed for want of jurisdiction the suit against Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company as its policy limit ($5,000) was not sufficient to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (a) (1). As the case involved a single claim asserted against multiple defendants with the dismissal as to some leaving a suit remaining as to others, the order was interlocutory, not final, and the appeal must be dismissed. Reagan v. Traders & General Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 845 ; Meadows v. Greyhound Corp., 5 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 233 . This does not preclude the appellant from applying to the district court for an order permitting an appeal to be taken as is authorized by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (b). Ex parte Deepwater Exploration Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 546 ; Ex parte Watkins, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2& 548.
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Costas Hadjipateras, Nicholas Hadjipateras and Dimitri Dracos v. Pacifica, S. A., and George Tsakalotos
- Garner v. Wolfinbarger
- Ex Parte Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., Ex Parte Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
- In re Humble Oil & Refining Company
- Borskey v. American Pad & Textile Co.
- Herman Howze v. Arrow Transportation Company and Zurich Insurance Company
Most recent
- Garner v. Wolfinbarger
- Ex Parte Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., Ex Parte Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
- In re Humble Oil & Refining Company
- George Borskey v. American Pad & Textile Co., Rene J
- Borskey v. American Pad & Textile Co.
- Costas Hadjipateras, Nicholas Hadjipateras and Dimitri Dracos v. Pacifica, S. A., and George Tsakalotos
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.