RePass v. Vreeland

1 Citing brief

  1. Air Express International v. Log-Net, Inc.

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed August 5, 2016

    A review of RePass, as set out above, however, discloses that the Third Circuit was not considering this issue when it decided the case fifty years ago – it was analyzing the finality of orders 1 The Court of Appeals decided that the single item of damages presented on the facts could not meet either test and thus demurred “explor[ing] the metaphysical distinctions between the two tests, if, in fact, any exist.” RePass, 357 F.2d at 805. Case 3:12-cv-01732-MAS-TJB Document 169 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 3920 4 for the purposes of interlocutory appeals under Rule 54(b). Further, and more tellingly, in RePass, the defendant had moved pursuant to Rule 56 for partial summary judgment on part of a claim, and other than noting that was what had been done and finding that on order on such a motion was not final under Rule 54(b), the Third Circuit took no pains to complain about the District Court’s actions.