Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

891 F.2d 293

Docket No. 89-2151.

United States v. Bill Wayne Jameson

This page is marked noindex.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1989-12-08

Relies on William B. Tanner Co. v. United States · United States v. Stull

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-12-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2014

3 federal appellate ·

501989199020002010decided

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 →

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Before MILBURN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

¶1

The defendant, Marsha K. Blanchard, appeals an order granting the plaintiff partial summary disposition in this action to reduce to judgment assessments of tax liability for three tax years. The plaintiff moves for dismissal of this appeal on grounds it is not taken from a final, appealable order. The defendant has not responded.

¶2

The order from which the defendant has appealed grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff for one of the tax years in question, but denies summary judgment for the remaining two years. The district court held the defendant was barred from relitigating the amounts of deficiencies with respect to those two years, but that she was not barred from contesting her joint and several liability with the other defendant, her former spouse. In the absence of certification as a final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), an order disposing of fewer than all parties or claims in an action is nonappealable. William B. Tanner Co. v. United States, 575 F.2d 101, 102 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam). Although the district court certified as final under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) the judgment against the defendant's former spouse (now pending as an appeal in Case No. 89-2152), no such certification was made in this case.

¶3

It is therefore ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss this appeal is granted without prejudice to the defendant's right to perfect a timely appeal from the entry of final judgment.

/891/f2d/293 · .json · Public domain