Legal Opinion

Jack Rothenberg and Shirley Rothenberg v. Security Management Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided May 29, 1980No. 78-2631PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Per curiam

In affirming the instant appeal, we write to clarify two points, one procedural and one substantive.

1. Rule 54(b) Certification.

Davis and Security Management Co., Inc., urge the following as the law of this circuit: “In entering a rule 54(b) certification [Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)], a district court should include a statement explaining its reasoning for determining [that] there is no just reason for delay.” In support of this proposition, they cite Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, 555 F.2d 542, 550 (5th Cir. 1977), and Schwartz v. Compagnie General Transatlantique, 405 F.2d 270, 274-275 (2d Cir.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Carolyn HUCKEBY, Plaintiff, v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, Defendant-Appellee, v. Alice BOBO, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  2. Schwartz v. Compagnie General TransatlantiqueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
  3. Max S. Gumer v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
  4. Pisano v. Security Management Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1978

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Anthuis v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  2. Austin Hayden v. Orison F. McDonald Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
  3. Cox v. HOWARD, WEIL, LABOUISSEMississippi Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Building Industry Ass'n of Superior California v. BabbittCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
  5. Huntington National Bank v. HookerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1991

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API