Legal Opinion
Network Communications v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided August 13, 1990No. 89-1246PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
We are required to determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a summary judgment on all counts in the current complaint when pending before the district court there is a motion to amend the complaint to add new claims. Because the district court clearly intended to dispose of the motion to amend, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
I
Plaintiff Network Communications (“NetCom”) filed a complaint in the district court on June 7, 1988, amended by a First Amended Complaint on June 15, 1988, containing…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. ChasserSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Dorothy Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., and Stelux Manufacturing Co., and Bulova Watch Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Rose Marks, D/B/A Middlebelt-Eureka Shell v. Shell Oil Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- Robert Czeremcha v. International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-CioCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- James Ellison v. Ford Motor Company Woodhaven Stamping Plant and Frank DoyleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- In Re SaffadyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- H.R. Technologies, Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Hoover v. Timken Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- Dunn v. SavageCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.