Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Co-op. Corp., No. 75--1752

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER; ROSS
Citation528 F.2d 949
Parties6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,388 Mary STOCKSLAGER et al., Appellants, v. CARROLL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION et al., Appellees.
Decision Date07 January 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75--1752

Page 949

528 F.2d 949
6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,388
Mary STOCKSLAGER et al., Appellants,
v.
CARROLL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION et al., Appellees.
No. 75--1752.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 1975.
Decided Jan. 7, 1976.

Page 950

John B. Hawley, Fayetteville, Ark., for appellants.

Appearance for Federal appellees was made by Walter Kiechel, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.

James F. Dickson, Fayetteville, Ark., for appellees.

Before ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by several land owners and the Arkansas Ecology Center to enjoin the construction of electric high voltage lines across or near the lands of some of the individual plaintiffs. The named defendant was Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation, which was planning the construction of the line. In its complaint the plaintiffs alleged generally that the defendant cooperative was receiving federal funds for the project; that the project would adversely affect the environment and that the defendant had 'failed to include in its reports to federal agencies * * * a detailed statement concerning the environmental impact of the proposed action * * $.

After a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the defendants pointing out that 42 U.S.C. § 4332 placed the duty of filing environmental impact statements on 'all agencies of the Federal Government' rather than on the cooperative, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include David A. Hamil, Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration.

On September 2, 1975, two orders were entered. The first order dismissed the complaint of certain named plaintiffs against whom state condemnation proceedings had already been instituted by the cooperative on the grounds that 'in view of 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, this court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action as to these plaintiffs.' 1 The named plaintiffs thus dismissed filed a notice of appeal from that order.

On the same date Judge Williams entered an order conditionally granting a preliminary injunction against Carroll Electric Corporation as to constructing the 69 kilovolt line. The preliminary injunction

Page 951

was conditioned upon the posting of a $10,000 bond by the plaintiffs and further provided that the injunction 'shall not prohibit construction upon lands which are the subject of condemnation actions in the state courts of Arkansas on May 16, 1975.' This, again, was based on 28 U.S.C. § 2283 on the theory that the anti-injunction statute precluded the court from interfering with state court actions pending prior to the filing of this federal court action. Plaintiffs did not post the bond but appealed from those portions of the order relating to the bond and exempting the land of the plaintiffs already involved in condemnation actions.

Neither of the defendants cross-appealed so the validity of the injunction is not before us except as to the two conditions of the injunction heretofore described which are being challenged by the plaintiffs.

As to the appellants' first ground for appeal, the dismissal of several of the plaintiffs, the simple answer is that this court does not have jurisdiction to decide it. The dismissal of some of the plaintiffs, but not all, is not an appealable order in the absence of certification under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lane v. Graves, 518 F.2d 965 (8th Cir. 1975).

As to appellants' contention that the trial court should not have required a $10,000 bond we need only look to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides as follows:

(c) Security. No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, No. C 94-4117.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 27, 1995
    ...303, 305 (8th Cir.1985) (court simply stated that bond was posted "as required by Rule 65(c)."); Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 951 (8th Cir.1976) (finding question 878 F. Supp. 1279 of whether bond was required answered by plain language of Rule 65(c)); Telex Corp.......
  • Trs. of the Carpenters' Health & Welfare Trust Fund of St. Louis v. Darr, Nos. 10–1682
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 21, 2012
    ...Reform Act's “their intended scope” when “state-court plaintiff” wins race to courthouse), Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Co-op. Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 952 (8th Cir.1976) (injunction against state court proceedings in derogation of federal requirement “to carry out the national environmental po......
  • Gulf Oil Corp. v. F. P. C., Nos. 76-2596 and 77-1050
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 7, 1977
    ...fixed by the district court will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion, see, e. g., Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Co-op Corp., 528 F.2d 949 (8th Cir. 1976); Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 403 F.Supp. 527 (N.D.Ill.1975) aff'd, 545 F.2d 1050 (7th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds, -......
  • First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, Civil No. 18-954 (JRT/KMM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • July 2, 2018
    ...trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of that discretion." Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp. , 528 F.2d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 1976). "Courts in this circuit have almost always required a bond before issuing a preliminary injunction, but exceptions ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, No. C 94-4117.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 27, 1995
    ...303, 305 (8th Cir.1985) (court simply stated that bond was posted "as required by Rule 65(c)."); Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 951 (8th Cir.1976) (finding question 878 F. Supp. 1279 of whether bond was required answered by plain language of Rule 65(c)); Telex Corp.......
  • Trs. of the Carpenters' Health & Welfare Trust Fund of St. Louis v. Darr, Nos. 10–1682
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 21, 2012
    ...Reform Act's “their intended scope” when “state-court plaintiff” wins race to courthouse), Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Co-op. Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 952 (8th Cir.1976) (injunction against state court proceedings in derogation of federal requirement “to carry out the national environmental po......
  • Gulf Oil Corp. v. F. P. C., Nos. 76-2596 and 77-1050
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 7, 1977
    ...fixed by the district court will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion, see, e. g., Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Co-op Corp., 528 F.2d 949 (8th Cir. 1976); Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 403 F.Supp. 527 (N.D.Ill.1975) aff'd, 545 F.2d 1050 (7th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds, -......
  • First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, Civil No. 18-954 (JRT/KMM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • July 2, 2018
    ...trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of that discretion." Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp. , 528 F.2d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 1976). "Courts in this circuit have almost always required a bond before issuing a preliminary injunction, but exceptions ha......
  • 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