U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1951

Felder v. D. Loughran Co., Inc

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 11, 1951 · Edgerton, Fahy, Miller, Per Curiam, Wilbur

188 F.2d 623; 88 U.S. App. D.C. 139 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Joseph D. Bulman, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Nathaniel Goldberg, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. W. Cameron Burton, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Thomas B. Heffelfinger, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Miguel Pons v. Republic of Cuba (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Viola Chvala v. D. C. Transit System, Inc., Ann Baker v. D. C. Transit System, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Decker v. Dreisen-Freedman, Inc. (D.C. 1956)
Rieser v. Baltimore Ohio Railroad Company (2d Cir. 1955)
Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (2d Cir. 1955)
Griffith v. Sandler (D.C. 1953)
Maizel v. Epstein (D.C. Cir. 1952)
Felder v. D. Loughran Co., Inc (D.C. Cir. 1952)
Pabellon v. Grace Line, Inc. (Coston Supply Co., Third-And-Fourth-Party Defendants) (2d Cir. 1951)
Durling v. Kennedy (Md. 1956)
Roberts v. American Newspaper Guild Roberts v. Evening Star Newspaper Co (D.C. Cir. 1951)
Vale v. Bonnett (D.C. Cir. 1951)

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.

Appellant sued appellee and others in the District Cotirt for damages to compensate for injuries alleged to have been caused by their negligence. He alleged he was struck by an automobile which was being backed out of a parking lot owned by appellee. The other defendants were the operator and owners of the automobile. On motion the District Court dismissed the complaint insofar as it was against the appellee. The action remains pending, however, against the other defendants. Thus we have an appeal with respect to one but not all of the claims involved in the action. Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., accordingly applies. The court did not make an express determination that there is no just cause for delay and did not expressly direct the entry of judgment, as required by said Rule as a condition to the finality, and therefore the appealability, of an order which adjudicated less than all the claims. For this reason the appeal must be dismissed. David v. District of Columbia, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. —, 187 F.2d 204.

Dismissed.

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