§Why CasetextPricing

Yount v. Jewell et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Judgment

14 Cited authorities

  1. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.

    446 U.S. 1 (1980)   Cited 2,045 times
    Holding that it was "proper for the District Judge here to consider such factors as whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals"

  2. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC

    422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 231 times
    Holding that "consideration of judicial administrative interests is necessary to assure that application of the Rule effectively preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals"

  3. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt

    939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 311 times
    Holding that an eight-month delay was unreasonable

  4. Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts College

    843 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1988)   Cited 225 times
    Holding that an appeal from a judgment certified pursuant to Rule 54(b) was not appropriate where there is “substantial ... imbrication between the dismissed counts and the surviving count” or where “[t]he factual underpinnings of the adjudicated and nonadjudicated counts are ... inextricably intertwined”

  5. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., v. Archer

    655 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 250 times
    Holding that it was not proper to direct entry of judgment when counterclaim reserved for trial and counterclaims upon which summary judgment was granted were logically related from a factual and legal standpoint

  6. Quinn v. Millsap

    491 U.S. 95 (1989)   Cited 45 times
    Holding plaintiff who didn't own property had standing to challenge Missouri law requiring property ownership for board of freeholders

  7. Blair v. Shanahan

    38 F.3d 1514 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that "28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) does not allow a State standing to participate in a motion where questions of constitutionality [of a state statute] are not among the issues argued"

  8. Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

    776 F.2d 1414 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that a district court's express determination that there was no just reason for delay is a jurisdictional requirement under Rule 54(b)

  9. Purdy Mobile Homes v. Champion Home Bldrs.

    594 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 35 times
    Affirming a finding of no just reason for delay in entry of final judgment as to some claims where issues of law were unsettled because reversal of the district court's judgment likely would result in the need for a second trial

  10. Sherwin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co.

    2:11-CV-43 JCM (VCF) (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2011)

    2:11-CV-43 JCM (VCF) 11-16-2011 TARA ANN SHERWIN, Plaintiff, v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff Tara Ann Sherwin's motion to amend this court's previous partial summary judgment order to add Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) severance and stay the proceedings pending appeal. (Doc. #38). Sherwin requests that this court amend its previous order to sever the bad faith causes of action from the remaining causes of action in this

  11. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 41,179 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"