TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Metallurgical Industries, Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., a Corporation, and Irvin Bielefeldt

METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOURTEK, INC., a Corporation, Et Al., Defendants, and Irvin Bielefeldt, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Metallurgical Indus. v. Fourtek, Inc., 771 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1985)
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
September 23, 1985
Docket
No. 84-1773
Judges
Per Curiam, Politz, Reavley, Tate
Citations
771 F.2d 9153 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 8351985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23227

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

When an appellant notices appeal from an interlocutory order and subsequently obtains a certificate pursuant to Fed.R.

*916 Civ.P. 54(b) for appeal of the prior order, must a new notice of appeal be filed after entry of the Rule 54(b) order? Our answer: a new notice is not prerequisite to our jurisdiction.

On May 7, 1985, 762 F.2d 1002 , this panel dismissed the appeal of Metallurgical Industries, Inc. on the grounds that the order from which the appeal was taken did not dispose of the claim against one of the defendants. We suggested that appellant accept appellees’ offer of a joint motion to the district court to certify finality pursuant to Rule 54(b); and we advised that, if the Rule 54(b) certificate were obtained, the appeal so supplemented could proceed.

See General Motors Corp. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 498 F.2d 327, 328 (5th Cir.1974).

The district court did on June 6 make the proper Rule 54(b) certificate by an order that granted no relief except to certify the finality of the June 28, 1984 order from which the attempted appeal originally was taken. Metallurgical Industries, Inc. filed the certificate and moved to reinstate the appeal. Appellees now oppose the exercise of our jurisdiction on the ground that the June 6 order is the first final order of the district court, that no notice of appeal has been given to comply with Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and that no appeal has therefore been taken. If that were the result here, it would be a real victory of form over substance. The parties and judges alike knew that the appeal would proceed upon entry of the district court’s 54(b) certificate.

Fortunately, we have the holding of Alcorn County, Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, 731 F.2d 1160 (1984) to support us in giving effect to the premature notice of appeal. This result is in the spirit of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(2), and is not contrary to any words of the Rule. When the only object of the Rule 54(b) order is to make the original order appealable, our jurisdiction should be sustainable under several theories, but we enjoy the umbrella of Alcorn County:

We join the Third Circuit in holding that a premature notice of appeal does invoke appellate jurisdiction except in the narrow circumstances described in Rule 4(a)(4).

See Cape May Greene, Inc. v. Warren, 698 F.2d 179 (3d Cir.1983). [ 731 F.2d at 1166 ]

The appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal is GRANTED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1987: 21988: 21994: 21996: 22021: 119872026peak 1987 · 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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Alcorn Cnty., Miss. v. U.S. Interstate Supplies, Inc., 731 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1984) 116
Cape May Greene, Inc. v. Warren, 698 F.2d 179 (3d Cir. 1983) 138
Gen. Motors Corp., Etc. v. Dade Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 498 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. 1974) 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