United States v. L.J. Garner and Tommie N. Garner
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Per curiam
Supplementing our earlier opinion in United States v. Garner, 749 F.2d 281 (5th Cir.1985), we note sua sponte that the district court, 567 F.Supp. 313, may wish to consider, in addition to the alternative already suggested in our earlier opinion, reentering the interlocutory order and thus triggering a new ten-day period for the government to pursue an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Aucoin v. Matador Services, Inc., 749 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir.1985); Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir.1981). In the event that an appeal is so perfected, see § 1292(b); Fed.R.App.P. 5, there will be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miguel Antonio Aparicio v. Swan Lake, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., Third Party v. Panama Canal Company, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- United States v. L.J. Garner and Tommie N. GarnerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Lloyd Aucoin v. Matador Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- United States v. GarnerDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1983
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. L.J. Garner and Tommie N. GarnerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Louisiana Public Service CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2016