United States v. Woodard
| Decision Date | 30 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 16807.,16807. |
| Citation | 257 F.2d 805 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Edwin Udell WOODARD et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Howard E. Shapiro, Samuel D. Slade, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., E. David Rosen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Emanuel Levenson, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before CAMERON, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
The United States brought this action against appellees, Edwin Udell Woodard and Clarence B. Moody, as residents of Miami, Florida, and Florida Marine Corporation, a company organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida, based upon a single claim. Appellee Woodard filed a motion to dismiss which was granted. The order entered on this motion was interlocutory only, and was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, which alone confers jurisdiction upon this Court in such actions. Meadows v. Greyhound Corporation, 5 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 233, and Reagan v. Traders and General Insurance Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 845.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gauvreau v. United States Pictures, Inc.
...v. American Distilling Co., 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 1012; Lopinski v. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self Systems, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 422, 424; United States v. Woodard, 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 805; Lohr v. United States, 5 Cir., 264 F.2d 619; and Luria Bros. & Co. v. Rosenfeld, 9 Cir., 244 F.2d 192, 194. Cases quashing s......
-
Lohr v. United States
...other defendants on the same claim\'. Reagan v. Traders and General Insurance Co. 5 Cir., 255 F.2d 845, 847. See also, United States v. Woodard 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 805; Meadows v. Greyhound Corp. 5 Cir., 235 F.2d 233. This rule also applies to parties defendant who have not been served. They a......
-
Mayfield v. Desoto Parish Police Jury, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2374
...motion to dismiss as to only one defendant, which is considered an interlocutory order and not a final judgment. See United States v. Woodward, 257 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1958) (holding that order granting motion to dismiss one of two defendants was interlocutory). Instead, Rule 54(b) controls.......
- United States v. Fox, 312