U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1984

Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 21

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 14, 1984 · Farris, Fletcher, Jameson

733 F.2d 645; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22529 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Dean E. Peterson, Weyerhaeuser Co., Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee., Robert K. Udziela, Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O’Leary & Conboy, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant., ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.

Will Stone v. City And County Of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1992)
Stone v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1992)
Nlpc v. East Coast Lightning Equipment (9th Cir. 2020)
In re: Jessica Arlene Nelson (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2014)
In re: Jessica Arlene Nelson (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2014)
In re: Brett Gordon Pekrul (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2013)
Rediger Investment Corp. v. H Granados Communications, Inc. (In re H Granados Communications, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2013)
In re: H Granados Communications, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2013)
In re Gross (9th Cir. 2002)
United States Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. (5th Cir. 1994)
Matter of U.S. Abatement Corp. (5th Cir. 1994)
Stone v. City & County of San Francisco (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1993)
Guy O. Dove, Iii, Spargos Mining Nl v. Atlantic Capital Corporation (2d Cir. 1992)
In re Fugazy Express, Inc. (2d Cir. 1992)
Shimer v. Fugazy (2d Cir. 1992)
Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc. (5th Cir. 1987)
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor v. Joseph P. Mazzola, Robert E. Buckley, Robert J. Costello, Etc. (9th Cir. 1985)

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

The International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (the Union) appeals from the district court’s order finding it in contempt for continuing to violate a previous injunction upheld by this court. The district court stayed its decision on sanctions pending this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (1982).

A contempt order, is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 prior to the imposition of sanctions. See Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 1978) (dicta); Western Pacific Railroad Corp. v. Western Pacific Railroad Company, 216 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir. 1954). See also United States v. Hankins, 565 F.2d 1344, 1352 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 *646 U.S. 909, 99 S.Ct. 1218, 59 L.Ed.2d 457 (1979); S.E.C. v. Naftalin, 460 F.2d 471, 475 (8th Cir. 1972).

The order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, as an appeal from an order continuing an injunction. It is not an order continuing an injunction because the district court has not yet imposed sanctions. Cf. Sanders v. Monsanto Co., 574 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1978) (denial of contempt order appealable under section 1292 when no further action necessary in district court).

Further proceedings remain in the district court that could result in a second appeal if the instant order is affirmed. The contempt order may be reviewed effectively on appeal from the final judgment Flanagan v. United States, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 1055, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). We lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

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