Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • David White v. The University of Tulsa-College of Law, The University of Tulsa Professors Chapman, Hager, Limas, Tanaka, Clark, Adams and Sheila Powers, 953 F.2d 1392, 10th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views2 pages
    The court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had partially dismissed counts in the plaintiff's amended complaint against various defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction. The court of appeals notified the parties it was considering summary dismissal for the same reason. Upon reviewing briefs and the motion to dismiss, the court of appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as there was no final order or Rule 54(b) certification. The appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-02-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 953 F.2d 1392 Docket: 91-5070

    Original Title

    David White v. The University of Tulsa-College of Law, the University of Tulsa Professors Chapman, Hager, Limas, Tanaka, Clark, Adams and Sheila Powers, 953 F.2d 1392, 10th Cir. (1992)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had partially dismissed counts in the plaintiff's amended complaint against various defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction. The court of appeals notified the parties it was considering summary dismissal for the same reason. Upon reviewing briefs and the motion to dismiss, the court of appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as there was no final order or Rule 54(b) certification. The appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    27 views2 pages

    David White v. The University of Tulsa-College of Law, The University of Tulsa Professors Chapman, Hager, Limas, Tanaka, Clark, Adams and Sheila Powers, 953 F.2d 1392, 10th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had partially dismissed counts in the plaintiff's amended complaint against various defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction. The court of appeals notified the parties it was considering summary dismissal for the same reason. Upon reviewing briefs and the motion to dismiss, the court of appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as there was no final order or Rule 54(b) certification. The appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    953 F.

    2d 1392
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    David WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    The UNIVERSITY OF TULSA-COLLEGE OF LAW, The
    University of
    Tulsa; Professors Chapman, Hager, Limas, Tanaka,
    Clark, Adams; and Sheila Powers,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 91-5070.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Feb. 4, 1992.

    Before SEYMOUR, STEPHEN H. ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit


    Judges. *
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
    BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

    The district court partially dismissed various counts of Plaintiff-Appellant's first


    amended complaint against various Defendants-Appellees. Defendant-Appellee
    Tanaka and the other Defendants-Appellees filed motions to dismiss for lack of
    a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); 10th
    Cir.R. 27.2.1. On July 30, 1991, we notified the parties that we were
    considering summary dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction explaining
    that the appeal would be dismissed summarily in the absence of a Fed.R.Civ.P.
    54(b) certification or a final order. See Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d
    641, 645-46 (10th Cir.1988) (en banc). Briefing was tolled. We then referred
    the motions to dismiss to a merits panel and set out a briefing schedule. Upon

    reviewing the briefs and the motion to dismiss, we must conclude that we lack
    jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
    The appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore
    is ordered submitted without oral argument

    **

    This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
    used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
    the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
    Cir.R. 36.3

    You might also like