Joseph P. Marshall v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America
Opinion
351 F.2d 467
Joseph P. MARSHALL, Appellant, v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America.
No. 15226.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued September 23, 1965.
Decided October 4, 1965.
W. J. Krencewicz, Shenandoah, Pa., for appellant.
Morton Hollander, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Sherman L. Cohn, Edward Berlin, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
The order from which this appeal has been taken is interlocutory, not final. It is unappealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
2
The appeal will be dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
- Edwin R. Cordova Torres v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security
- Marshall v. Lansing
- United Steelworkers of America Local 1913 And/or Sam Godich v. Union Railroad Company
- United States of America in No. 87-1777 v. Marcus Spears and Doris E. Spears. Appeal of Doris Spears, in No. 87-1735
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Albert Brodka
Most recent
- Government of the Virgin Islands ex rel. Larsen v. Ruiz
- Edwin R. Cordova Torres v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security
- Marilyn FINKELSTEIN v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
- United States of America in No. 87-1777 v. Marcus Spears and Doris E. Spears. Appeal of Doris Spears, in No. 87-1735
- Marshall v. Lansing
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.