PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR TR. ASS'N v. Port of Phila. MT Ass'n
Citation | 276 F.2d 931 |
Decision Date | 25 April 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 13216.,13216. |
Parties | PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION et al. v. PORT OF PHILADELPHIA MARINE TERMINAL ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Francis A. Scanlan, Philadelphia, Pa. (William R. Deasey, Kelly, Deasey & Scanlan, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
Robert H. Shertz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
James J. Leyden, Richard H. Markowitz and Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Levy Anderson, First Deputy City Sol., David Berger, City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), amici curiae.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
We are of the opinion that the order appealed from is a temporary restraining order within the purview of Rule 65(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. The court below so designated and intended it and this appears fully from the statement made by the court from the bench which is part of the record before us. Even if the central issue presented by the complaint is nothing more than the maintenance of the status quo pending the disposition of the Section 15 Agreement and the Schedules filed by the defendant, 46 U.S.C.A. § 814, nonetheless we are of the opinion that a United States district court has the jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order to permit it to ascertain the operative facts whereby its jurisdiction or lack of it may be ascertained.
While the order did not designate a ten-day limit as required by Rule 65(b) but on the contrary provided that it would remain in force until the application for a preliminary injunction had been heard, we think that this is insufficient to alter its essential character under the circumstances at bar. Had the appeal not been taken on the day following the issuance of the order the terminal date of the order could have been extended as authorized by Rule 65(b) until the 27th of April. Being of the view that the order appealed from is a temporary restraining order, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and accordingly the appeal will be dismissed.
The stay order of this court will be vacated.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant v. United States
...temporary injunction was heard, when the appeal was taken prior to the expiration of 20 days. Pennsylvania Motor Truck Ass'n v. Port of Philadelphia Marine Terminal Ass'n, 1960, 276 F.2d 931. Here the minimum period of restraint was 24 days, only four more than the 20 permitted by Rule 65(b......
-
Hyde Construction Company v. Koehring Company, 8717.
...Inc. v. Flight Engineers' International Association, 2 Cir., 306 F.2d 840, 841-842, and Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association v. Port of Philadelphia Marine Terminal Association, 3 Cir., 276 F.2d 931. 21 Salvage Process Corporation v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 2......
-
United States v. Wood
...Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 890; Mesabi Iron Co. v. Reserve Mining Co., 8 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 567; Pennsylvania Motor Truck Ass'n v. Port of Philadelphia Marine Terminal Ass'n, 3 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 931. 5 One of the questions posed by the appellees is how the denial of an order can be final whe......
-
U.S. v. Spectro Foods Corp.
...supra. See discussion infra at 1182.6 Austin v. Altman, 332 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1964); Pennsylvania Motor Truck Ass'n v. Port of Philadelphia Marine Terminal Ass'n, 276 F.2d 931 (3d Cir. 1960) (per curiam); Moore, supra, at P 110.20(5).7 The thirty days in which to file a notice of appeal exp......