TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Seahorse Boat & Barge Corporation v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., Armco Steel Corporation

SEAHORSE BOAT & BARGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACKSONVILLE SHIPYARDS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Armco Steel Corporation Et Al., Defendants

Seahorse Boat & Barge Corp. v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 617 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 19, 1980
Docket
No. 77-3501
Judges
Goldberg, Johnson, Hatchett
Citations
617 F.2d 3961982 A.M.C. 3011980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17432

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

In this suit involving the purchase of a boat by a Louisiana resident from a Florida boatbuilder, plaintiffs claimed subject matter jurisdiction under diversity and admiralty jurisdiction. Jacksonville Shipyards was one of four parties named as defendants to the action. The district court granted Jacksonville Shipyards’ motion to dismiss the suit as to itself due to lack of personal jurisdiction, but did not certify the question to this Court.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

In a case involving multiple parties, dismissal of one party is not appealable absent a certification by the district court that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

See Cason v. Owen, 578 F.2d 572, 574 (5th Cir. 1978). Nor does the dismissal fall within the limited class of interlocutory appeals authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(3) relating to the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty.

See Austracan (U.S.A.), Inc. v. M/V LEMONCORE, 500 F.2d 237, 240-41 (5th Cir. 1974).

Therefore, we dismiss Seahorse Boat & Barge Corporation’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal DISMISSED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1982: 11993: 11994: 11997: 11999: 12000: 22022: 219822026peak 2000 · 2

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Austracan, (U.S.A.) Inc. v. M/V Lemoncore, 500 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1974) 15
Cason v. Owen, 578 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1978) 13

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