Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

289 F.2d 314

Docket No. 13426.

Carey v. Danecki

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 24, 1961.

Decided April 25, 1961.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-04-25

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1966

5 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1961-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*315James A. McGregor, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

¶2No oral argument for appellee.

¶3Robert E. Wayman, Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for third-party defendant.

¶4Before KALODNER, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6In this diversity action for damages arising out of an automobile collision, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, Benjamin Danecki, joined the plaintiff, Merle G. Carey as a third-party defendant. Carey subsequently filed an amended answer in which he pleaded as a bar to Danecki’s third-party action against him, a release executed prior to the institution of the instant suit. The District Court granted Carey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and this appeal followed.

¶7The record discloses that the District Court did not, in accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. make an express determination that there was no just reason for delay.

¶8Under the circumstances the appeal must be dismissed as being from an interlocutory order and it is so ordered.

/289/f2d/314 · .json · Public domain