Milbert v. Bison Laboratories

Decision Date28 October 1958
PartiesHerbert MILBERT v. BISON LABORATORIES, Inc., and The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Suto, Power, Goldstein & Walsh, Marvin D. Power, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Meyer, Darragh, Buckler & McDonnell, Kim Darragh, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Bison.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

Bison Laboratories, Inc., one of the defendants in a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has made application to this court for permission to appeal from the order of that court entered September 24, 1958, refusing its motion to quash the service of summons and dismiss the action. The application is stated to be made under section 1292(b) of title 28 United States Code, as added by the Act of September 2, 1958, Public Law 85-919, 72 Stat. 1770, which provides as follows:

"(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order."

It is quite apparent from the legislative history of the Act of September 2, 1958 that Congress intended that section 1292(b) should be sparingly applied. It is to be used only in exceptional cases where an intermediate appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation and is not intended to open the floodgates to a vast number of appeals from interlocutory orders in ordinary litigation. Both the district judge and the court of appeals are to exercise independent judgment in each case and are not to act routinely. Thus in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the bill it is stated:

"Congress, in the past, has recognized the necessity for and now permits a right of appeal from interlocutory orders in a limited number of cases. Section 1292 of title 28 United States Code, permits appeals from interlocutory or nonfinal orders in certain types of receivership actions, admiralty decrees and patent cases as well as from orders granting or denying injunctive relief. There are, however, other kinds of cases where interlocutory appeals are needed. There should be some way, for example, in long-drawn-out cases such as antitrust and conspiracy cases, to dispose of vital questions which are raised in the trial without having to wait for the taking of testimony and the conclusion of the trial before the questions can be finally determined on appeal. Without cataloging all of the cases in which interlocutory appeals could be proper, the following categories are those which would generally be affected: (a) cases where an accounting is necessary upon an adjudication of liability under a contract, (b) cases where a long trial would be necessary for the determination of liability or damages upon a decision overruling a defense going to the right to maintain the action, (c) cases involving third party defendants where there would be no reason for continuing the actions if the third parties could not be held liable and (d) causes relating to the transfer of the action where it is claimed that the transfer is not authorized by law.
"It is felt that the instant bill, in permitting appeals in nonfinal orders, will not only save protracted and expensive litigation, but, with its built-in safeguards, prevent numerous and groundless appeals to our appellate courts. To begin with, before an appeal can be had, the district court must certify in writing that the order involves a controlling question of law and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate determination of the case. In addition, the court of appeals must also be of the same opinion before the appeal can be had. To prevent dilatory tactics, the bill further provides that there shall be no stay of proceedings in the district court unless either the district court or one of the judges of the court of appeals or the court itself orders a stay.
"There is made a part of this report a report to the Judicial Conference of the United States, which sponsors this legislation. Your committee adopts with approval the view contained therein that appeals under this legislation should only be used in exceptional cases where an intermediate appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation and is not to be used or granted in ordinary litigation wherein the issues raised can otherwise be properly disposed of."1 Emphasis supplied.

And in the report made on the bill by the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate it is said:

These examples give some indication of the desirability of this legislation. However, while it may be desirable to permit appeals from any interlocutory order in certain instances, the indiscriminate use of such authority may result in delay rather than expedition of cases in the district court. Obviously, such appeals should not be allowed if they are filed solely for the purpose of delay or are based upon spurious grounds. In order to eliminate such appeals the bill is cast in such a way that the appeal is discretionary rather than a matter of right. It is discretionary in the first instance with the district judge for he must state in writing as a part of his order that it is his
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
198 cases
  • National Asbestos Workers Medical v. Philip Morris, 98 CV 1492.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • November 1, 1999
    ...judge and the court of appeals are to exercise independent judgment in each case and are not to act routinely." Milbert v. Bison Lab., Inc., 260 F.2d 431, 433 (3d Cir.1958) (emphasis The court of appeals for the Second Circuit has echoed the need for district court judges to use discretion ......
  • Braden v. University of Pittsburgh, 75-1657
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 10, 1975
    ...(per curiam).16 366 F.Supp. 1221 (S.D.N.Y.1973).17 Cf. Borskey v. American Pad & Textile Co., 296 F.2d 894, 895 (5th Cir. 1961).18 260 F.2d 431 (3d Cir. 1958).19 Notes of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rule 5, quoted in 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 205.02(2), at 1103 (1975). See 9 Moore's ......
  • Forsyth v. Kleindienst, Civ. A. No. 72-1920.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • November 12, 1982
    ...... See Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc., 260 F.2d 431, 433 (3d Cir.1958) (en banc). The critical issue in each ......
  • Kolbeck v. General Motors Corp., Civ. A. No. 88-0714.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • February 13, 1989
    ...U.S. 463, 475, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2461, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (discussing the legislative history of § 1292(b)); Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, 260 F.2d 431, 433-35 (3d Cir.1958). The issues raised by GM's motion for partial summary judgment in this lawsuit concern important areas of state and ......
  • 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