Mitchell v. Parham

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

May 28, 1965.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1965-05-28

2 counsel of record

Relies on 231 F. Supp. 347 - Pugliano v. Staziak · Crutcher v. Joyce · Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1965-05-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 1985

16 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Odes J. Harwood, Midwest City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellant.

Burck Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, for defendants-appellees.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

The appeal is dismissed because of the lack of an appealable order. See Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 53; and Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809, 813, 814.

¶2

On remand, if the plaintiff desires to amend his pleadings, he must do so within 10 days of the date of remand. If he fails to amend, the court should promptly enter a final order dismissing the action.