Hoiness v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentHealy, Circuit Judge
I think we may, without doing violence to the statute, treat the decree of October 14, 1946 as a “final decision.” Clearly, the trial court understood it to be such, and the parties on both sides have so treated it for the purposes of the appeal.
*506Generally speaking, where an order or judgment has been entered effecting the final disposition of a cause, the federal appellate courts have applied the principle that the subsequent entry of a second judgment, making an identical disposition, cannot be permitted to operate as an extension of the statutory period for appeal. Accordingly, appeals from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rubber Company v. GoodyearSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Monarch Brewing Co. v. George J. Meyer Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
- Liberty Mut. Ins. v. PillsburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1946
- Prescott & A. C. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- Sosa v. Royal BankCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1943