TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Suzanne L. Robinson, and Constance Robinson v. Parke-Davis and Company

Suzanne L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, and Constance Robinson, Appellant, v. PARKE-DAVIS AND COMPANY, Appellee

Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1982)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 17, 1982
Docket
No. 81-1819
Judges
Murnaghan, Per Curiam, Russell, Widener
Citations
685 F.2d 91234 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 10091982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16528

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This action was instituted by a mother and her daughter for injuries to the daughter ostensibly resulting from the mother’s use of the defendant’s drug Norlutin during her pregnancy. The two plaintiffs asserted five causes of action in their complaint. In response to a motion by the defendant, the district court dismissed all claims of the mother after concluding that they were barred by the applicable Virginia statute of limitations. Va.Code § 8.01-243(B). The court also dismissed two of the five causes of action of the daughter. The mother appealed her dismissal, while the daughter’s case continued through discovery.

While the district court’s order appears to end the mother’s litigation, the court failed to make “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and ... an express direction for the entry of judgment,” as provided for in Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 54(b). Because the district court’s order adjudicated “fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties”, the order was still subject to revision by the district court and would be appealable only upon an express Rule 54(b) certification. E.g., Schnur & Co. v. McDonald, 328 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1964); Wright & Miller, 10 Federal Practice & Procedure § 2660 (1973). Without such certification, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

We express no opinion as to whether or not the appeal should be certified under FRCP 54(b) should the appellant make proper application to the district court following the dismissal of her appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 37 cases

View all citing references →
1986: 21987: 11988: 11990: 11991: 31994: 11996: 21997: 21998: 21999: 12000: 32002: 12003: 12005: 12010: 22014: 22015: 22016: 12017: 62020: 219862026peak 2017 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Citizens Concerned About Our Children v. School Board of Broward County193 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999)
  2. Ashmore v. CGI Group, Inc.860 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2017)
  3. Hutchinson v. Miller797 F.2d 1279 (4th Cir. 1986)
  4. Linda Evans v. George Perry578 F. App'x 229 (4th Cir. 2014)
  5. Westlake Legal Group v. Yelp, Inc.599 F. App'x 481 (4th Cir. 2015)
  6. Cruey v. Early396 F. App'x 940 (4th Cir. 2010)

Most recent

  1. Brenda Noe v. City National Bank of West VirginiaNo. 20-1230 (4th Cir. Sept. 30, 2020)
  2. Thompson v. Ford Motor CompanyNo. 1:18-cv-03324 (D. Colo. July 16, 2020)
  3. Ashmore v. CGI Group, Inc.860 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2017)
  4. Rockville Housing Enterprises v. Deborah Redman691 F. App'x 766 (4th Cir. 2017)
  5. Susan Parker v. Michael Austin691 F. App'x 129 (4th Cir. 2017)
  6. United States v. Loxly Johnson687 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2017)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Schnur & Cohan, Inc. v. D. L. Mcdonald, 328 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1964) 11

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