Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

410 F.2d 731

Docket No. 26350.

Eklund v. Mora

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 21, 1969.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-04-21

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“after judgment has been entered or an appeal taken.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Chancery Clerk of Chickasaw County v. Wallace, Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co.

“In Finn this court held that where a first trial was free from error apart from a jurisdictional matter, a new trial was not mandatory and judgment could be entered on the original verdict after the correction of the jurisdictional flaw by the dismissal of a non-diverse defendant.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Riggs v. Island Creek Coal Co.

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1653

Relies on Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co. · Floyd v. Resor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1969-04-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1995

11 federal appellate ·

801969197019801990decided

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 →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2*732Frank S. Normann, Thomas E. Guil-beau, Normann & Normann, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

¶3Albert J. Joyce, Jr., Balboa, Canal Zone, John D. Goodwin, Shreveport, La., for appellee.

¶4Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Appellant raises only one point on this appeal, whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate judgment.1 The basis of the motion was that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because appellee, a resident of the Republic of Panama, sought to bring her action under a statute which is limited to residents of the Canal Zone. The statute is set out in pertinent part in the margin.2 Appellee filed her original complaint under subdivision (a) (1).

¶7The district court ruled that appellant’s motion was untimely, coming at the end of the trial and after judgment, and granted appellee leave to amend the complaint to correct the jurisdictional flaw.3

¶8While we agree with appellant that the motion was not untimely, see C. Wright, Federal Courts § 7, at 14-16 (1963), we affirm the ruling of the district court. Upon leave of the court a party may amend defective allegations of jurisdiction, even after judgment has been entered or an appeal taken. Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 207 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1953); 28 U.S.C.A. § 1653; Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. In Finn this court held that where a first trial was free from error apart from a jurisdictional matter, a new trial was not mandatory and judgment could be entered on the original verdict after the correction of the jurisdictional flaw by the dismissal of a non-diverse defendant.

¶9The judgment of the district court is

¶10Affirmed.

/410/f2d/731 · .json · Public domain