Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

526 F.2d 710

Docket No. 75-3724

Johnson v. McDole

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 2, 1976.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1976-02-02

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Belmont Place Associates v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., Ringwald v. Harris

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · United States v. Crow, Pope & Land Enterprises, Inc. · Coulter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1976-02-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1994

9 federal appellate ·

60197619801990decided

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*711Roland J. Aehee, Shreveport, La., for defendant-appellant.

¶3Sydney B. Nelson, Shreveport, La., Frederick L. Hilger, Eureka, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7Johnson seeks enforcement of a California judgment against McDole. McDole challenges the jurisdiction of the California court. The district court held the California judgment valid, but stayed execution until a counterclaim by McDole against Johnson for breach of a contract factually related to the California judgment could be heard and determined. As far as the record shows, the merits of the counterclaim have not yet been considered.

¶8Although the issue has not been raised by the parties, we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this case. The claim of Johnson and the counterclaim of McDole constitute multiple claims within the meaning of Fed.R. Civ.P. 54(b). A decision on one of the claims does not constitute a final appeal-able order unless the district court makes “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No such entry or determination has been made by the district court. Hence, the judgment lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 45; Luckett v. Spivy, 5 Cir. 1974, 490 F.2d 87; United States v. Crow, Pope and Land Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir. 1973, 474 F.2d 200; Coulter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 1189; Tompkins Motor Lines v. Georgia Broilers, Inc., 5 Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 830.

¶9Appeal dismissed.

/526/f2d/710 · .json · Public domain