General Motors Corporation, Etc. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DADE BONDED WAREHOUSE, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
In this action General Motors asserted claims against both Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc. and Blanche R. Bergin, executrix of the estate of Cecil A. Bergin. Although the jury was charged on the various theories of liability possibly applicable to Bergin, their verdict did not mention the claim against her. Furthermore, a careful search of the record reveals that no judgment was ever entered on this claim, although the district court did deny General Motors’ motion for a new trial against Bergin. Thus the judgment fails to adjudicate all the claims and liabilities of all the parties, as required by F.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No certificate under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) appears in the record. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
*328 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2781; F.R.Civ.P. 58; 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
See, e. g., Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 45 ; Foret v. McDermott, 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 992 .
See also, United States v. Indrelunas, 1973, 411 U.S. 216 , 93 S.Ct. 1562 , 36 L.Ed.2d 202 ; State National Bank of El Paso v. United States, 5 Cir. 1974, 488 F.2d 890 .
Should the district court enter a new judgment on General Motors’ claim against Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., and issue the Rule 54(b) certificate, the appeal from that judgment may be submitted on the record and briefs prepared for this appeal, supplemented by the new judgment and certificate, and on the oral arguments heretofore heard.
Dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Coy E. Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Columbia Gulf Transmission Company
- Carolyn HUCKEBY v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS v. Alice BOBO
- B. B. Adams General Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. James A. Pate, Modern American Mortgage Corporation
- Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Unifi, Inc. v. Leesona Corporation in Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation
- Dyhouse v. Baylor
- Lex Tex Ltd. v. Unifi, Inc.
Most recent
- In re Chateaugay Corporation
- LTV Corp. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.)
- Metallurgical Industries, Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., a Corporation, and Irvin Bielefeldt
- Dyhouse v. Baylor
- Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Unifi, Inc. v. Leesona Corporation in Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation
- Lex Tex Ltd. v. Unifi, Inc.
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.