Rappaport v. U.S.
Decision Date | 22 June 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 76-2157,76-2157 |
Citation | 557 F.2d 605 |
Parties | 77-2 USTC P 9521 Julius RAPPAPORT, a/k/a Jerome Hirsh, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Richard E. Gorman, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Myron C. Baum, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen M. Gelber, Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Samuel K. Skinner, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge, and GRANT, * Senior District Judge.
The district court filed a memorandum decision concluding with "Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted." On a printed form customarily used in the Northern District of Illinois to record motions presented, appearances thereon, and dispositions thereof, the same sentence was inserted. We understand this form is ordinarily referred to as a "minute order." The minute order was reflected in a docket entry as follows:
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from "the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant." Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes plain that "Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document" and is "effective," and, therefore, appealable, "only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a)." The importance of the requirement of a judgment on a separate document is explained in United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973).
In Home Federal Sav. & L. Ass'n of Chicago v. Republic Ins. Co., 405 F.2d 18, 25 (7th Cir. 1968), we were able to construe a paragraph inserted in a minute order as a judgment, and thus to treat the minute order as a judgment "set forth on a separate document" under Rule 58 and "entered" in the civil docket under Rule 79(a). The paragraph referred to itself disposed of the issues in the case, and although it lacked the customary form of a judgment, we felt able to construe it as a denial of relief to plaintiff, and therefore, as a judgment. In the present case, the one sentence minute order is simply a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The issues in the case are not resolved, nor is a final declaration of result made. At most, the minute order in this case directs a judgment. But to treat it as a judgment would just be stretching too far.
We do not mean to suggest it is desirable to have the matter rest upon the drawing of fine lines between those minute orders that can be considered final judgments and those that cannot. Indeed, we wonder whether in our desire to reach the merits in Home Federal and to avoid inconvenience to the parties and ourselves, we were not overly liberal in our construction of the minute order in that case.
Regardless, at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alpine State Bank v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
...prescribed for judgment in a civil case failing to indicate both the ruling and the disposition not appealable); Rappaport v. United States, 557 F.2d 605, 606 (7th Cir.1977) (minute order granting motion for summary judgment but not explicitly declaring the case over not appealable). See ge......
-
In re Heldor Industries, Inc.
...See United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 221, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973) (per curiam); Rappaport v. United States, 557 F.2d 605, 606 (7th Cir.1977). The same distinction applies in bankruptcy court. See Bankr.R. 9021 (based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 58); see, e.g., Seiscom Delta Inc. ......
-
Louisiana World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue
...Judge Feldman held the hearing on December 21, 1983, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.5 See Rappaport v. United States, 557 F.2d 605 (7th Cir.1977) for a general discussion on "minute orders."6 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) provides:Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use ......
-
Pence v. Rosenquist, 210
...in Miller. 1 The original appeal was dismissed because there was no judgment set forth as a separate document. See Rappaport v. United States, 557 F.2d 605 (7th Cir. 1977).2 (T)his office has never taken any position or given any advice to the effect that an individual who wears a moustache......