Ross v. Evans
| Decision Date | 18 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20538.,20538. |
| Citation | 325 F.2d 160 |
| Parties | A. C. ROSS, District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Georgia, Appellant, v. Harry T. EVANS, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Slaton Clemmons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Meyer Rothwacks and Ralph A. Muoio, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
John W. Rogers, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges.
The appellee, Harry T. Evans, filed his complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against the appellant District Director, seeking to restrain the collection of a penalty which had been assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service. A temporary restraining order was entered on December 5, 1962. By an order dated December 14, 1962, the temporary restraining order was continued in full force and effect until the further order of the court. This order was entered by consent of the parties. On January 21, 1963, the District Director filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Director did not, by this motion or at any other time or in any other manner seek to dissolve the temporary restraining order. By its order dated February 8, 1963, the court denied the motion to dismiss. In its order the court referred to the consent restraining order and held that it should remain in effect.
The District Director has appealed from the order denying the motion to dismiss. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. Connell v. Dulien Steel Products, Inc., 5th Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 414. The temporary restraining order was extended by consent. See Rule 65, Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. Where, as here, the temporary restraining order has been entered by consent until the further order of the court, and no application has been made to dissolve the restraining order, and no orders have been made with respect to the restraining order except to continue it in force, it will not have lost its character as a nonappealable temporary restraining order and become converted into an appealable preliminary injunction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
...a temporary restraining order issued or extended with the consent of all parties remains a nonappealable order. Ross v. Evans, 325 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1963); cf. Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 614 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1980) (preliminary injunction entered upon the consent of all parties c......
-
Smith v. Grady
...§ 1292." Of course, temporary restraining orders are not appealable, Chandler v. Garrison, 5 Cir., 1967, 394 F.2d 828; Ross v. Evans, 5 Cir., 1963, 325 F.2d 160. In deciding the jurisdictional question, this Court will look beyond terminology to the actual content, purport, and effect of th......
-
U.S. v. Bayshore Associates, Inc.
...all circuits routinely allow appeals from TROs that have been extended by stipulation for an indefinite period. In Ross v. Evans, 325 F.2d 160 (5th Cir.1963) (per curiam), the Fifth Circuit Where, as here, the temporary restraining order has been entered by consent until the further order o......
-
Hunt v. Bankers Trust Co.
...14 Otto 767, 768, 26 L.Ed. 921 (1882); Pacific R.R. v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289, 11 Otto 289, 25 L.Ed. 932 (1880); cf. Ross v. Evans, 325 F.2d 160, 160-61 (5th Cir.1963) (dealing with a temporary restraining order extended by consent); Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 429 U.S. 648, 649, 97 S.Ct. ......