Madry v. Sorel

Decision Date22 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 30217.,30217.
Citation440 F.2d 1329
PartiesDr. John G. MADRY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Otto G. SOREL et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Gleason, Walker, Pearson & Ferrell, Melbourne, Fla., Carl W. Pearson, Titusville, Fla., J. Compton French, Landis, Graham, French, Husfeld, Sherman & Ford, Daytona Beach, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Ralph Geilich, Elting L. Storms, G. W. Hedman, Storms, Pappas & Krasny, Melbourne, Fla., Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, Fla., Leon H. Handley, Jeff B. Clark, Orlando, Fla., for defendants-appellees.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS* and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:

Doctor Madry attacked his 1966 suspension from the Brevard Hospital on the grounds that (i) as a Hill-Burton financed project the conduct of the Board of Governors was invested with requisite state action,1 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and (ii) that the suspension was constitutionally invalid for want of adequate, timely notice of the charges, accompanied by an opportunity for a fair hearing in which witnesses could be confronted and cross-examined. On the basis of pretrial depositions and affidavits, which were opposed in part by counter affidavits from the hospital board, Dr. Madry moved for summary judgment including a mandatory injunction for reinstatement.2 The Trial Court denied3 the motion and Dr. Madry appeals. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, there being no appealable order.

Under no conceivable construction was the Court's order a final judgment, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, since it expressly contemplated further action on the merits.4 The only possible way to sustain jurisdiction is to treat the order as the equivalent of a denial of a preliminary injunction which is appealable, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a) (1).5

But this will not do. First, as a denial of summary judgment the order is interlocutory and unappealable. United States v. Florian, 1941, 312 U.S. 656, 61 S.Ct. 713, 85 L.Ed. 1105, reh. denied, 312 U.S. 715, 61 S.Ct. 738, 85 L.Ed. 1145; Waller v. Professional Ins. Corp., 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 729. Second, and more vital, where refusal to grant a preliminary injunction is cast in the form of a denial of a summary judgment it is not appealable. Switzerland Cheese Assoc. v. Horne's Market, 1966, 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23; Chappell & Co. v. Frankel, 2 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 197. The wisdom of the rule is borne out by this record which shows substantial conflict on at least one critical issue. This is of great importance in constitutional cases in which the issues should be solidly based, since Courts "* * * ought not to be pulled into academic exercises on a case that factually may never be * * * but ordinarily should grapple with these problems on a factual record. Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 1962, 369 U.S. 111, 82 S.Ct. 580, 7 L.Ed. 2d 604." Pred v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 851, 852.

Thus the case — a year later and with no advancement in learning or determining the state of the law or its most recent mutations,6 Mike Hooks, Inc. v. Pena, 5 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 696, 1963 A. M.C. 355 — goes back for the hearing on the merits which the District Court recognized would some day be required. See Wooten v. Ohler, 5 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 759.

Appeal dismissed.

* Of the Tenth Circuit sitting by designation.

2 The brief motion concluded:

"That the Court order the Plaintiff reinstated to Defendant hospital medical staff with such privileges as he had immediately prior to his suspension therefrom and that Defendant hospital, * * * be enjoined from interfering with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. City of New Orleans
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 5 d1 Agosto d1 1974
    ...(1970); Switzerland Cheese Association, Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966); Madry v. Sorel (5th Cir. 1971), 440 F.2d 1329. But, however, it has been held that where a district court grants a defendant's motion for partial summary judgment which ......
  • Byrum v. Landreth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 22 d3 Abril d3 2009
    ...Inc. v. Choctaw Secs., L.P., 920 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1990); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 650 F.2d 617 (5th Cir. 1981); Madry v. Sorel, 440 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir.1971). ...
  • Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 19 d4 Junho d4 1975
    ...Gardner, 387 F.2d 336, 337 (5th Cir. 1967). Alart Associates, Inc. v. Aptaker, 402 F.2d 779, 780--781 (2d Cir. 1968). Madry v. Sorel, 440 F.2d 1329, 1330 (5th Cir. 1971). Clark v. Kraftco Corp., 447 F.2d 933, 934 (2d Cir. 1971). Gialde v. Time, Inc., 480 F.2d 1295, 1299 (8th Cir. 'It is a w......
  • Kirby v. PR Mallory & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 27 d2 Novembro d2 1973
    ...summary judgment is an interlocutory decree, United States v. Florian, 312 U.S. 656, 61 S.Ct. 713, 85 L.Ed. 1105 (1941); Madry v. Sorel, 440 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1971); Alart Associates, Inc. v. Aptaker, 402 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1968), without res judicata effect. 6 J. Moore, supra, at ¶ 56.142......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT