Oak Construction Co. v. Huron Cement Co.
6th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 1997Good v. Ohio Edison Co. 6th Cir.
- 1992Porter v. Wright 6th Cir.
- 1992Liberty Heating and Cooling, Inc. v. Builders Square, Inc. 6th Cir.
- 1992Leila Jenkins James Francis Vivian Rairdon Betty Umstead Ruth Davis v. Holloway Sportswear, Inc. 6th Cir.
- 1992Karen A. Dobrilovic v. Niles Manufacturing and Finishing, Inc. 6th Cir.
- 1992Hanson v. Total Lifestyle Corp. 6th Cir.
- 1991Harrison v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores 4th Cir.
- 1991William D. Crutcher, Marion L. Madry v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources, H. David Owens 6th Cir.
- 1991Richard C. Nicholson v. Samuel K. Skinner 6th Cir.
- 1991Lepore v. Parker-Woodard Corp. 6th Cir.
Cites 2 statutes
- Discrimination in price, services, or facilities
- Final decisions of district courts
Cites 3 cases
- Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc.
- Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing
- David v. District of Columbia
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
OAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HURON CEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges
- Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE, and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
Attorneys
- Richard H. Scholl, Detroit, Mich., Schaden & Peplowski, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
- George B. Martin, Detroit, Mich., Dickinson, Wright, McKean & Cudlip, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for defendantappellee.
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant cement company in a Robinson-Patman action, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a), (d), and (e), to recover treble damages for injuries resulting from unlawful price discrimination.
The record reveals that a counterclaim for non-payment of a contract debt was filed by defendant but has not yet been adjudicated. Since all the claims before the court were not decided in the grant of summary judgment, that order is interlocutory. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Brunsing, 378 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1967); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 54.35[1], at 582 (2d ed. 1948).
Federal courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction of interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, David v. District of Columbia, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 187 F.2d 204 (D.C.Cir.1950), although in an action involving multiple claims or parties the district court may enter a final, appealable judgment with respect to less than all the claims or parties if it certifies that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No such certification or direction was entered in this case. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
This lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured now by a belated Rule 54(b) certification by the District Court. Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc., 357 F.2d 883 (7th Cir. 1966). Our jurisdiction attaches, if at all, when notice of appeal is filed in the district court. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(a). If all the jurisdictional prerequisites have not been satisfied at that point, we have no choice but to dismiss the action and “indicate to the parties that if the trial court enters a new judgment and accompanies it with a Rule 54(b) certificate, the second appeal will be heard on the record and briefs prepared for the first appeal, as supplemented by the new judgment and certificate.” 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1193, at 26 (Wright ed. 1958).
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.