Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Ralph A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes McDOLE, Defendant-Appellant, 1976 — 526 F.2d 710 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Ralph A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes McDOLE, Defendant-Appellant
526 F.2d 710·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1976
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Ralph A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes McDOLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 75-3724
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. .
Feb. 2, 1976.
Roland J. Aehee, Shreveport, La., for defendant-appellant.
Sydney B. Nelson, Shreveport, La., Frederick L. Hilger, Eureka, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
Johnson seeks enforcement of a California judgment against McDole. McDole challenges the jurisdiction of the California court. The district court held the California judgment valid, but stayed execution until a counterclaim by McDole against Johnson for breach of a contract factually related to the California judgment could be heard and determined. As far as the record shows, the merits of the counterclaim have not yet been considered.
Although the issue has not been raised by the parties, we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this case. The claim of Johnson and the counterclaim of McDole constitute multiple claims within the meaning of Fed.R. Civ.P. 54(b). A decision on one of the claims does not constitute a final appeal-able order unless the district court makes “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). No such entry or determination has been made by the district court. Hence, the judgment lacks the requisite finality to be appealable within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Anderson v. Robinson, 5 Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 45; Luckett v. Spivy, 5 Cir. 1974, 490 F.2d 87; United States v. Crow, Pope and Land Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir. 1973, 474 F.2d 200; Coulter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 1189; Tompkins Motor Lines v. Georgia Broilers, Inc., 5 Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 830.
Appeal dismissed.