United States v. Hyman Stromberg
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
RIVES, Circuit Judge.
Both parties originally treated this appeal in a denaturalization proceeding as being from a final decision, and, hence, within this Court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. Upon oral argument, the Court suggested that, if the notice of appeal were followed literally, the appeal was from the order denying plaintiff’s motion under Rules 52(b) and 59(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. 1 The motion had been timely filed, and, under Rule 73(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time for appeal from the final judgment had not expired when the notice was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. MenascheSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Schneiderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Tutun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Bruner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Shomberg v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Pitney Bowes, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Celina Mestre, Personal Representative of the Estate of Luis Mestre, Deceased, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- State v. Reader's Digest Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Mary Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., Mary Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., and Third-Party v. Kay-See Dental Manufacturing Co., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Liudas Kairys, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Watson W. Markham v. James HoltCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.