U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1958

Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta

Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided February 20, 1958 · McAllister, Stewart, Mathes
253 F.2d 28; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3819 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry and A. J. Porta

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the Court from the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties that, as appellees concede, the order of the District Court dismissing appellants’ complaint as amended and supplemented, for non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., was not a dismissal of the action and is not appeal-able, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that appellants may yet file, by leave of Court pursuant to Rule 15, an amended complaint which will meet the requirements of Rule 8;

It is ordered that the appeal is hereby dismissed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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