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

George Gilbertson v. City of Fairbanks

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided February 24, 1958 · Mathews, Pope, Lem-Mon

253 F.2d 231; 17 Alaska 458; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3848 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edgar Paul Boyko, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., William V. Boggess, Fairbanks, Alaska, George N. Sheild, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

Melvin Miles v. City of Chandler, a Municipal Corporation (9th Cir. 1961)
Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc. (Ariz. 1961)
Century Investment Corp. v. United States (9th Cir. 1960)
Louisville Trust Company v. Smith (6th Cir. 1961)
Louisville Trust Co. v. Smith (6th Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On August 23, 1956, in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, appel-lee brought a civil action against appellant. Appellant filed an answer 1 containing a counterclaim. The counterclaim was- in two counts. Appellee moved to' dismiss both counts, thus, in effect, moving to dismiss the counterclaim. The District Court granted the motion and entered an order which, in effect, dismissed the counterclaim. 2 This appeal is from the order.

Three claims were presented in this action — a claim of appellee against appellant, stated in the complaint, and two claims of appellant against appellee, stated in the counterclaim. The order adjudicated appellant’s claims against appel-lee, but did not adjudicate appellee’s claim against appellant. The determination mentioned in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. was not made. Hence the order was not appealable. 3

Appeal dismissed.

. The answer was entitled “Answer and counterclaim.”

. In the order, the counterclaim was incorrectly referred to as “the action set forth in said first and second counts in [appellant’s] counterclaim.” Obviously, the thing set forth in the two counts was the counterclaim.

. Walter W. Johnson Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 223 F.2d 101. See also Kam Koon Wan v. E. E. Black Ltd., 9 Cir., 182 F.2d 146; Burkhart v. United States, 9 Cir., 210 F.2d 602; Russell v. Texas Co., 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 740; Wynn v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 212 F.2d 953; Steiner v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., 9 Cir., 220 F.2d 105; Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. American Seating Co., 9 Cir., 225 F. 2d 838; Id., 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 846; Russell v. Hackworth, 9 Cir., 233 F.2d 503; Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp., 9 Cir., 237 F.2d 386; Massa v. Jiffy Products Co., 9 Cir., 238 F.2d 228.

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