Johnston v. Cartwright
| Decision Date | 29 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 17898.,17898. |
| Citation | 344 F.2d 773 |
| Parties | Robert W. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. H. G. CARTWRIGHT, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Burns H. Davison, II, Des Moines, Iowa, filed motion to dismiss for appellee.
Lex Hawkins, Des Moines, Iowa, filed resistance to motion to dismiss for appellant.
Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge.
The motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal for want of "any order from which an appeal lies" Rule 54(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. is denied.
The appeal was taken from an order of the District Court which dismissed an action for libel as to one of the three defendants against whom it had been jointly brought, on the ground of failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as to such defendant (appellee here).
The order did not contain "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and * * * an express direction for the entry of judgment", as required by Rule 54(b) to make such an order constitute a final judgment "when multiple parties are involved". Following, however, the court's dismissal as to the one defendant, appellant sought and was granted leave to dismiss the action as to the two other defendants without prejudice, and dismissal was so entered as to them. This terminated all pendency of the litigation as to them. Rosso v. Magraw, 288 F.2d 840, 841 (8 Cir. 1961). Their situation became legally "the same as if the suit had never been brought". Boner v. Ribicoff, 304 F.2d 427, 428 (6 Cir. 1962); Humphreys v. United States, 272 F.2d 411, 412 (9 Cir. 1959).
The matter was thereafter one in which multiple parties were no longer involved, and to which Rule 54(b) therefore was without further application. The dismissal order as to appellee was in its form such as would, except for the applicability of Rule 54(b) thereto, have been able to constitute and operate as a final judgment at the time it was made. When the situation was left without further application of Rule 54(b) thereto, from the dismissal without prejudice permitted as to the two other defendants, the order of dismissal as to appellee became entitled to the effect and operation of which its form was capable, and which it would previously have had except for the provisions of Rule 54(b).
We accordingly hold that appellant was entitled, after his dismissal without prejudice as to the two other defendants, to file the notice of appeal which he did to the court's order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eiland v. Coldwell Banker Hunter Realty
...DeVille Photography, Inc. v. Bowers (1959), 169 Ohio St. 267, 272 [8 O.O.2d 281, 283-284, 159 N.E.2d 443, 446]; Johnston v. Cartwright (C.A.8, 1965), 344 F.2d 773, 774. "3. Where it appears that claims or actions are still pending between or among some or all of the parties below, are not o......
-
State ex rel. Zidell v. Jones
...all parties have been adjudicated. Jetco Electronic Industries, Inc. v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1973); Johnston v. Cartwright, 344 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.1965); Marotta v. Milestone, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 237, 314 F.2d 242 (1963); Lundgren v. Freeman, 292 F.2d 489 (9th We hold that the prima......
-
U.S. v. O'Neil
...complete consolidation, dismissal of some parties and the like. See Ringwald v. Harris, 675 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1982); Johnston v. Cartwright, 344 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.1965) (on motion to dismiss appeal), 355 F.2d 32 (8th Cir.1966) (on the merits). This Circuit and others have recognized severan......
-
State ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe
...after the parties agreed to dismiss without prejudice the only claims remaining against the defendant. In Johnston v. Cartwright, 344 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir.1965), plaintiff appealed the dismissal of one defendant after voluntarily dismissing the remaining two defendants without prejudice b......
-
Should the Eighth Circuit recognize procedural misjoinder?
...1292(b) (2006). (140.) 77 F.3d at 1356 n.4. (141.) 164 F.3d 1102 (8th Cit. 1999). (142.) Id. at 1105-06. See Johnston v. Cartwright, 344 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cit. (143.) 478 F.3d 957 (8th Cit. 2007). (144.) Id. at 958. (145.) Id. (146.) Id. at 962. (147.) Id. (148.) Id. (149.) Id. (150.) Prof......