Adam G. Nunez v. The Superior Oil Company
Adam G. NUNEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
In this case the district court rendered a “ruling” granting defendant-appellee’s motion for summary judgment. However, there was a failure to comply with the mechanical requirement of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment be “set forth on a separate document.” Hence, this appeal must be dismissed.
Taylor v. Sterrett, 527 F.2d 856 (5 Cir. 1976).
See United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216 , 93 S.Ct. 1562 , 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973).
Should a new appeal be taken after compliance with Rule 58, complete rebriefing is not required. We suggest, however, that the parties may wish to file succinct supplemental briefs on the question whether appellee’s defense concerning failure to give notice of default is one that should have been set forth affirmatively under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, if so, whether this defense was set forth affirmatively.
1
APPEAL DISMISSED.
1
.
See Record, v.1 at 197 and 199.
But see Brief for Appellee at 52.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(stating only that “the district court rendered a ‘ruling’ granting . . . summary judgment”)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.