Mayersky v. Celebrezze, 15258.

Decision Date02 November 1965
Docket NumberNo. 15258.,15258.
Citation353 F.2d 89
PartiesMichael J. MAYERSKY, Appellant, v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

W. J. Krencewicz, Shenandoah, Pa., for appellant.

Merna B. Marshall, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Sherman L. Cohn, Edward Berlin, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded here that our decision in Marshall v. Celebrezze, Secretary, etc., 351 F.2d 467 (opinion filed October 4, 1965) governs this appeal. As we said in Marshall, "The order from which this appeal has been taken is interlocutory, not final. It is unappealable. 28 U.S.C. 1291."

The appeal will be dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Bohms v. Gardner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 8, 1967
    ...that the remand order was not final within the meaning of § 1291. Marshall v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 467 (3 Cir. 1965); Mayersky v. Celebrezze, 353 F.2d 89 (3 Cir. 1965). Although the district court in the present case effected the remand on its own motion, after the Secretary's answer had be......
  • Tulsa Area Hospital Council, Inc. v. Oral Roberts University
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1981
    ...law, 28 U.S.C. 1291, is construed in accord with my view. Bohms v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 283, 285 (8th Cir. 1967); Mayersky v. Celebrezze, 353 F.2d 89 (3rd Cir. 1965); Marshall v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 467, 468 (3rd Cir. 1965). 1 My conclusion is that this appeal should have been dismissed. This......
  • Bender v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 28, 1984
    ...order concerned important evidentiary question, government was not a party and thus urgency factor not a concern); Mayersky v. Celebrezze, 353 F.2d 89 (3d Cir.1965) (remand order instructed Secretary to take additional evidence which is within district court's discretion).4 The government c......
  • Gentile v. Gardner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • February 26, 1969
    ...case to the Secretary for further proceedings is interlocutory. Marshall v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 467 (3d Cir. 1965); Mayersky v. Celebrezze, 353 F.2d 89 (3d Cir. 1965). 2 Subsection 205(g) of the Act, as amended September 13, 1960, Pub.L. 86-778, § 702(a), 74 Stat. 924, "Any action institut......
  • 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