Harvey Aluminum v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 8, 278 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1960). · Go Syfert
Harvey Aluminum v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 8, 278 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sergio Santos v. Melvin Coley, County of Tulare, Sergio Santos, and I. Singh Aulakh v. Melvin Coley, County of Tulare (ca9, 1993-12-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Sergio Santos v. Melvin Coley, County of Tulare, Sergio Santos, and I. Singh Aulakh v. Melvin Coley, County of Tulare
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harvey Aluminum v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 8, 278 F.2d 63 , 63-64 (9th Cir.1960) (per curiam); see also Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Miller, 938 F.2d 1038, 1039 (9th Cir.1991) (order dismissing punitive damage count is not a final, appealable order)
cited Cited "see" Dennis M. Presnell v. Seibels, Bruce & Company
4th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harvey Aluminum v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 8, 278 F.2d 63 (9th Cir.1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harvey Aluminum, a Corporation
v.
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 8 and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
16542_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 11, 1960.
278 F.2d 63
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

278 F.2d 63

HARVEY ALUMINUM, a corporation, Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL
8; and International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Appellees.

No. 16542.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 11, 1960.

Rhoten, Rhoten & Speerstra, Sam Speerstra, Salem, Or., for appellant.

Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard & Sibbett, San Francisco, Cal., Pozzi & Wilson, Portland, Or., for appellee.

Before POPE and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

[*~63]1

Appellant as plaintiff below brought this action against the appellees alleging in its complaint that this action 'arises under the laws of the United States regulating commerce, and more particularly under 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. 187).' It was based upon a claim that defendants had been guilty of certain acts amounting to secondary boycott resulting in damage to plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded judgment for three million dollars, general damages, three million dollars, punitive damages, and thirty-five thousand dollars, attorneys' fees. Defendants moved to strike from the complaint the allegations and the portion of the prayer claiming punitive damages. The motion was granted and plaintiff now attempts to appeal from the order granting that motion.

2

We think that the order from which appeal is sought is not a final order or decision within the meaning of 1291 of Title 28 U.S.C. Appellant seems to think that its appeal may be maintained under the authority of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528. That case is not apposite here as the order in question was but a step in the process of bringing the case to final judgment. It represents a stage of the proceeding which may be effectively reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results. The order is purely interlocutory and not appealable. Leonard v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 7 Cir., 130 F. d 535, 537; United States v. Burnett, 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 55; Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company, 2 Cir., 103 F.2d 771.

[*~64]3

The appeal is dismissed.