TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Estate of Richard Burks, Lucille Burks, Administratrix v. Dr. Leon Ross

ESTATE of Richard BURKS, Lucille Burks, Administratrix, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dr. Leon ROSS Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Estate of Richard Burks, Lucille Burks v. Ross, 418 F.2d 913 (6th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 28, 1969
Docket
No. 19520
Judges
Weick, Edwards, McCree
Citations
418 F.2d 9131969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9888

Opinion

*914 ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS The action in the District Court was one for damages for wrongful death of plaintiff’s decedent, whose death was allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendants, employees of the Govern-, ment, and the defendant, New York Central Railroad Company. The District Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Government employees on the ground that they were immune from tort liability. Barr v. Mateo, 360 U.S. 564 , 79 S.Ct. 1335 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1958). Plaintiff appealed to this Court from the summary judgment, but the action against the Railroad Company is still pending in the District Court.

The order granting the summary judgment did not expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay as required by Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and hence it was not a final order from which an appeal may be taken. Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on this ground.

In our opinion, the motion to dismiss is well taken. Partin v. Hassan Motors, Inc., 363 F.2d 104 (6th Cir.1966); Gab-bard v. Rose, 330 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1964).

It is therefore ordered that the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed. If upon the remand the District Judge determines to comply with Rule 54(b) and enters judgment in conformity therewith, we will permit any appeal therefrom to be heard on the present briefs and record, supplemented by the record of the proceedings subsequent to the remand.

We express no opinion on what the District Judge should do on the remand, as this involves the exercise of his discretion. Miles v. City of Chandler, 297 F.2d 690 (9th Cir.1961).

Entered by order of the Court.

How later courts describe this case

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

1969: 11974: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Powell v. Republic National Life Insurance Co.300 So. 2d 359 (Ala. 1974)
  2. Business Communications, Inc. v. Cahners Publishing Company420 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1969)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959) 1,117
Miles v. City of Chandler, a Mun. Corp., 297 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961) 19
Gabbard v. Rose, 330 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1964) 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