Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoiness v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 18, 1947No. 11479Published

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

  1. Rubber Company v. GoodyearSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
  2. Monarch Brewing Co. v. George J. Meyer Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
  3. Liberty Mut. Ins. v. PillsburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1946
  4. Prescott & A. C. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
  5. Sosa v. Royal BankCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API