Rhoda v. McIntyre v. The First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, Kdi Corp., Kdi Verkamp Corp., the Herbert-Verkamp-Calvert Chem. Co., 585 F.2d 190 (1st Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Rhoda v. McIntyre v. The First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, Kdi Corp., Kdi Verkamp Corp., the Herbert-Verkamp-Calvert Chem. Co., 585 F.2d 190 (1st Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
97 citation events (49 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. d/b/a Erlanger Health Sys. v. UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Inc. d/b/a/ AmeriChoice (2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 192 “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.” · 23 citing cases21 citing courts quote it
  • The Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. d/b/a Erlanger Health Sys. v. UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Inc. d/b/a/ AmeriChoice (2025).
    Like federal courts, Tennessee courts define a “claim” for these purposes as the “aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.” Christus Gardens, Inc. v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,…
  • Tressa Sherrod v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 103 F.4th 410 (6th Cir. 2024). 2 cites
    “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts”
  • Greene v. Crawford Cnty., No. 1:18-cv-11008 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 1, 2020).
    “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts”
  • Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Arnold Emmitt Quarles, III, No. M2015-01620-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2016).
    “”
  • Terry K. King v. Stephen S. Kelly, No. M2015-02376-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2016).
    A “claim” for the purposes of Rule 54.02 is defined as the “„aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.‟” Brown, 2009 WL 4878621 , at *6 (quoting McIntyre v. First Nat’l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d…
  • Inhalation Plastics, Inc. v. Medex Cardio-Pulmonary, Inc., 638 F. App'x 489 (6th Cir. 2016).
    Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 192 (6th Cir.1978).
  • Waltman v. Georgia-Pac., LLC, 590 F. App'x 799 (10th Cir. 2014).
    Express Corp., 426 F.3d 817, 821 (6th Cir.2005) (noting that, "[e]ven though different theories of liability may have been asserted, the concept of a claim under Rule 54(b) denotes the. aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a rig…
  • Artist Bldg. Partners v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., No. M2012-00157-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2012).
    A “claim” for the purposes of Rule 54.02 is defined as the “‘aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’” Brown, 2009 WL 4878621 , at *6 (quoting McIntyre v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d…
  • United Asset Mgmt. Trust Co. v. Clark, 332 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
    Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 192 (6th Cir. 1978); Rhodes v. Jones, 351 F.2d 884, 886-87 (8th Cir. 1965); Backus Plywood Corp. v. Commercial Decal, Inc., 317 F.2d 339, 341 (2nd Cir.1963)).
  • Barbara Carr v. Moosa Valinezhad, No. M2009-00634-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2010).
    Our review in this case focuses on the question of whether the trial court’s order disposes of one or more but fewer than all of the claims before it.3 A “claim” for the purposes of Rule 54.02 is defined as the “‘aggregate of operative fac…
Show 13 more citing cases
At page 191 permitting appellants to move to dismiss their own appeal on grounds that Rule 54(b) certification was improper · 19 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Chimneyhill Condo. Ass'n v. King Chow, No. W2020-00873-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2021).
    In other words, a claim “denotes ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts[.]’” Id. (quoting McIntyre v. First Nat’l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 191 (6th Cir. 1978)).
  • Lawrence B. Hammet, II v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. M2018-00352-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2018).
    This Court has previously defined a claim as denoting “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.” Christus Gardens, Inc. v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., No. M2007-01104-…
  • Bruce Guy, Jr. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, No. W2018-00082-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2018).
    This Court has stated “[a] claim denotes the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts." Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No. W2008-02276-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. M…
  • Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, No. W2018-00083-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2018).
    This Court has stated “[a] claim denotes the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts." Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No. W2008-02276-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. M…
  • Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, Tennessee, No. W2017-01464-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2018).
    This Court has stated, A[a] >claim= denotes >>the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.=" Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No. W2008B02276BCOABR3BCV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct.…
  • Yuletide Off. Supply, Inc. v. Justin Miller, No. W2017-01210-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2017).
    This Court has stated, A[a] >claim= denotes >>the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.=" Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No. W2008B02276BCOABR3BCV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct.…
  • Sandra Zoe Jeanette Naylor v. William Lee Naylor, No. W2015-01326-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2015).
    This Court has stated, “[a] „claim‟ denotes „„the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.‟" Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No. W2008–02276–COA–R3–CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct.…
  • In Re: Est. of Earsie L. Kirkman, No. W2013-02389-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2014).
    This Court has stated, “[a] ‘claim’ denotes ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’" Irvin at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No. W2008–02276–COA–R3–CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. A…
  • Planned Parenthood Se. Ohio Region v. DeWine, 696 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012). 2 cites
    Acquisition, 23 F.3d at 1028 ), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 935 , 126 S.Ct. 420 , 163 L.Ed.2d 320 (2005); McIntyre v. First Nat’l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 191 (6th Cir.1978).
  • John P. Konvalinka, Tr. v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. E2011-00896-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2012).
    We stated, “[a] ‘claim’ denotes ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts .’” Chook v. Jones, No. W2008-02276-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2010) (quoting Christus G…
Show 9 more citing cases
  • Una P. Irvin v. Ernest J. Irvin, II, No. M2010-01962-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2011).
    We stated, “[a] ‘claim’ denotes ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’” Chook v. Jones, No. W2008–02276–COA–R3–CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 20 10) (quoting Christus G…
  • Tony Williams v. Tennessee Farmers Life Reassurance Co., No. M2010-01689-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2011).
    We stated, “[a] ‘claim’ denotes ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’” Chook v. Jones, No. W2008-02276-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 960319 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2010)(quoting Christus Gar…
  • Clarence E. Johnson v. Tanner-Peck, L.L.C. William B. Tanner Individually & d/b/a Tanner-Peck Outdoor, No. W2009-02454-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2011).
    Likewise, the same legal right was asserted against party defendants who were not included in the summary judgment order, in that Mr. Johnson asserted against all defendants the same “aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right…
  • Mary Duffer, as of the Est. of Elmer Hamilton Lawson v. Mary Lawson, No. M2009-01057-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2010).
    Moreover, even if the May 2009 order contained the appropriate language from Rule 54.02, the order does not resolve a distinct “claim” for the purposes of Rule 54.02.10 A “claim” denotes “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to…
  • Barry I. Chook v. Tashawn N. Pirela Jones & Kenneth Jones, No. W2008-02276-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2010).
    A “claim” denotes “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.” Christus Gardens, Inc. v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., No. M2007-01104-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 3833613 , at *5 (…
  • Tanya Tucker v. Capitol Records, Inc., No. M2000-01765-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 1998).
    We dismissed the appeal in McIntyre v. First National Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 191 (6th Cir. 1978), after determining that the absence of multiple claims left the district court without “authority to enter final judgment” under Ru…
  • Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,191 Gen. Acquisition, Inc. v. Gencorp, Inc., Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., Wagner & Brown, 23 F.3d 1022 (6th Cir. 1994).
    We dismissed the appeal in McIntyre v. First National Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 191 (6th Cir.1978), after determining that the absence of multiple claims left the district court without “authority to enter final judgment” under Rul…
  • Morris May v. Warner Amex Cable Commc'ns, 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1988).
    McIntyre v. First Nat'l Bank, 585 F.2d 190, 191-92 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam).
  • Erbey Holding Corp. v. Black Rock Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 2025 V.I. 25 (2025).
    (permitting appellants to move to dismiss their own appeal on grounds that Rule 54(b) certification was improper)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rhoda
v.
McINTYRE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CINCINNATI, Defendant-Appellee, KDI Corporation, KDI Verkamp Corporation, the Herbert-Verkamp-Calvert Chemical Company, Defendants
78-3279.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Oct 27, 1978.
585 F.2d 190
1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8140
Thomas L. Conlan, Kyte, Wulsin & Vo-geler, Frederick J. McGavran, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants., L. Clifford Craig, Ross E. Wales, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Cincinnati, Ohio, for First National.
Engel, Keith, Merritt, Per Curiam.
Cited by 79 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The posture of this appeal is unusual. Appellants move to dismiss their own appeal on the ground the district court did not have the power under Rule 54(b), Fed.R. Civ.P., to certify as final the judgment from which appeal was taken. In the alternative they move for a stay of appellate proceedings pending a final decision by the district court on all other issues in this action.

Appellants filed a complaint in the district- court against four separate defendants, including the appellee First National Bank of Cincinnati, for alleged violations of federal securities laws and certain sections of the Ohio Revised Code. The district court ordered the state claims to be tried separately at a later date and held a trial to determine the liability of the defendants on the federal claims. On October 11,1977 the district court entered an order finding three of the defendants liable to the appellants on the federal claims, but finding the appellee First National Bank of Cincinnati not liable. Trial of the federal claims had been bifurcated and further proceedings as to damages were yet to be held as to the parties found liable. Nevertheless, on motion of the Bank, the district court, on April 10, 1978, entered final judgment for the appellee under Rule 54(b) based upon its October 11,1977 order, certifying there was no just reason for delay.

At the time the district court certified its final judgment as to the Bank, it had not yet fully adjudicated one or more of appellants’ claims nor fully determined the liability of appellee Bank, since its liability upon the state claim embodied in Count IV was yet to be heard. [1] The district court therefore had no authority to enter final judgment for appellee under Rule 54(b).

Amended 54(b) authorizes the district court in its discretion to make a certificate when it has made an adjudication “as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties.” This is not a[*192] warrant for the district court to make interlocutory adjudications final via a certificate.

6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 54.27[3] at 334 (2d ed. 1976) (footnotes omitted).

Professor Moore further observes:

Under the amended Rule, then, the district court must make a final adjudication as to at least one of the multiple claims or multiple parties before the district court is authorized by its certificate to make its adjudication final. Hence if the district court enters an order permitting the complaint to be amended, or an order requiring the production of certain documents, or a summary judgment for a portion of a claim, or any other order that falls short of adjudicating at least one claim, or the total interest of at least one party, the order cannot be made final under amended 54(b), despite an “express determination” and an “express direction.”

6 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 54.30[1] at 443-44 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original). See also 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 2657 at 54 (1973).

Moreover, that the state claim alleged under Count IV is upon a separate legal theory of fraudulent conveyance does not affect the non-finality of the judgment as it relates to the federal securities law claim embodied in that count. Even though different theories of liability may have been asserted, the concept of a “claim” under Rule 54(b) denotes “ ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’ ” Backus Plywood Corp. v. Commercial Decal, Inc., 317 F.2d 339, 341 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 879, 84 S.Ct. 146, 11 L.Ed.2d 110 (1963), quoting Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 189 (2d Cir. 1943). See also 10 Wright- & Miller, supra, ¶ 2657 at 50.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is not final and this court is without jurisdiction to review it at this time.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. To the extent that Count IV was premised upon the federal securities laws, however, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Bank.