Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 13270.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 13270.,13270. |
| Citation | 253 F.2d 28 |
| Parties | Sol A. DANN, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STUDEBAKER-PACKARD CORPORATION, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Dann, Rosenbaum & Bloom, Detroit, Mich., Sol A. Dann, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for appellant.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, Bodman, Longley, Bogle, Armstrong & Dahling, Detroit, Mich., White & Case and Ralph L. McAfee, New York City, for appellees.
Before McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, District Judge.
It appearing to the Court from the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties that, as appellees concede, the order of the District Court dismissing appellants' complaint as amended and supplemented, for non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., was not a dismissal of the action and is not appealable, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that appellants may yet file, by leave of Court pursuant to Rule 15, an amended complaint which will meet the requirements of Rule 8;
It is ordered that the appeal is hereby dismissed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 13940.
...20, 1958, this court dismissed that first appeal on the ground that the order appealed from was not a final order. Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corp., 6 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 28. Subsequently, the District Court permitted these appellants to file the present amended complaint. Upon motion by t......
-
Abrams v. Carrier Corporation
...U.S. 145, 86 S.Ct. 272, 15 L.Ed.2d 17 (1965). 2 In that event, there would have been no appeal to this court. Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 253 F.2d 28 (6th Cir. 1958); Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 3 In reviewing a decision by the National Labor Relations Boa......
-
Echols v. Voisine, Civ. A. No. 78-10165.
...herein to be a final, appealable order, rather than a nonappealable direct dismissal under F.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 253 F.2d 28 (CA 6, 1958). ...
-
Koll v. Wayzata State Bank
...that a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 would not be an appealable order since it would be lacking finality. Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 253 F.2d 28 (6 Cir. 1958). We affirm dismissal since the complaint fails to establish any grounds for federal jurisdiction. The federal courts a......