U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1988

In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm

In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided August 3, 1988 · Rubin, Johnson, Jones
852 F.2d 805; 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 101; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11306; 1988 WL 80239 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

In the Matter of Edmond G. Miranne, Sr., Debtor. Edmond G. Miranne, Sr. v. First Financial Bank and Mrs. Bernice Dohm

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The instant motion for a stay pending appeal is before this Court following its denial in the first instance in the district court. In denying appellant’s motion, the district court concluded that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s request for a stay due to the fact that appellant filed a notice of appeal prior to requesting a stay.

After reviewing the pertinent authorities in this area, we are persuaded that the district court retained jurisdiction to grant appellant’s request for a stay despite the fact that a notice of appeal to this Court was filed prior to the request for a stay. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62; 9 Moore’s Federal Practice 11208.05. Such a conclusion is consistent with the general principle that an application for a stay of the judgment or order of a district court should ordinarily be made in the first instance in the district court. Fed.R.App.P. 8(a).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED without prejudice to the appellant’s right again to seek a stay from the district court.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.