People of State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, No. 88-1555

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore CUMMINGS, POSNER, and MANION; POSNER
Citation861 F.2d 164
PartiesPEOPLE OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. Neil F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George PETERS, doing business as MGM Motors and George Peters, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 88-1555
Decision Date07 November 1988

Page 164

861 F.2d 164
PEOPLE OF the STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. Neil F. HARTIGAN,
Attorney General of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
George PETERS, doing business as MGM Motors and George
Peters, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-1555.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 3, 1988.
Decided Nov. 7, 1988.

Page 165

Paul E. Peldyak, Joseph N. Rathnau, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.

Margaret M. Drewko, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CUMMINGS, POSNER, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

We write to clarify a recurrent issue of appellate jurisdiction. The State of Illinois brought this federal suit against George Peters, a used-car dealer, under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 et seq., with a pendent claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 121 1/2, Sec. 268. On March 3, 1987, in response to a motion by the state, the district judge (1) appointed a receiver to take control of and operate Peters' dealership and (2) issued a preliminary injunction forbidding Peters to dispose of any of the assets of the dealership (mainly cars whose odometers had, according to evidence presented by the state, been tampered with) without the receiver's authorization. Six months later Peters moved to vacate the injunction and dissolve the receivership. The judge denied the motion on February 25 of this year, and this appeal followed.

There is no question that the judge's order of February 25 was appealable insofar as it denied Peters' motion to vacate the preliminary injunction issued the previous March; the denial of a motion to vacate an injunction is expressly appealable (without regard to finality) under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1). But Peters also seeks review of the district court's refusal to dissolve the receivership, and the state objects, pointing out that while an order appointing a receiver is appealable (without regard to finality) under section 1292(a)(2), there is no express provision in that section--in contrast to subsection (a)(1)--for appealing the denial of an order to vacate the appointment.

Section 1292(a)(2) provides that "interlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property," are appealable. There is little case law interpreting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Montaño v. City of Chicago, No. 02-3738.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 13 Julio 2004
    ...Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Constr. Co., 909 F.2d 259, 262 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting People of State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164, 166 (7th Cir.1988)); see also Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Robinson, 10 F.3d 492, 497 n. 2 (7th Cir.1993). As we have noted, "[a]ny laxer approach......
  • Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc., Nos. 90-2450
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 29 Septiembre 1992
    ...Valders Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Construction Co., 909 F.2d 259, 262 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting Illinois ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164, 166 (7th Cir.1988)). As we have emphasized, the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction is limited in scope, and will not be held applicabl......
  • Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, Nos. 89-2441
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 14 Enero 1991
    ...That concept sometimes allows a court to consider extra issues in an interlocutory appeal. Illinois ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164 (7th Cir.1988); Patterson v. Portch, 853 F.2d 1399 (7th Cir.1988). We could assume jurisdiction of Buckley's appeal against Page 1239 Fitzsimmons only......
  • Abelesz v. OTP Bank, Nos. 11–2353
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 22 Agosto 2012
    ...appeal of the otherwise unappealable interlocutory order to the end of the lawsuit. People of State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164, 166 (7th Cir.1988); see also McCarter, 540 F.3d at 653 (“only the most extraordinary circumstances could justify the use of whatever power th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Montaño v. City of Chicago, No. 02-3738.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 13 Julio 2004
    ...Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Constr. Co., 909 F.2d 259, 262 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting People of State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164, 166 (7th Cir.1988)); see also Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Robinson, 10 F.3d 492, 497 n. 2 (7th Cir.1993). As we have noted, "[a]ny laxer approach......
  • Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc., Nos. 90-2450
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 29 Septiembre 1992
    ...Valders Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Construction Co., 909 F.2d 259, 262 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting Illinois ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164, 166 (7th Cir.1988)). As we have emphasized, the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction is limited in scope, and will not be held applicabl......
  • Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, Nos. 89-2441
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 14 Enero 1991
    ...That concept sometimes allows a court to consider extra issues in an interlocutory appeal. Illinois ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164 (7th Cir.1988); Patterson v. Portch, 853 F.2d 1399 (7th Cir.1988). We could assume jurisdiction of Buckley's appeal against Page 1239 Fitzsimmons only......
  • Abelesz v. OTP Bank, Nos. 11–2353
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 22 Agosto 2012
    ...appeal of the otherwise unappealable interlocutory order to the end of the lawsuit. People of State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters, 861 F.2d 164, 166 (7th Cir.1988); see also McCarter, 540 F.3d at 653 (“only the most extraordinary circumstances could justify the use of whatever power th......
  • 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