Explosives Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Explosives Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schwarz v. Villages Charter School, Inc. (flmd, 2016-02-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwarz v. Villages Charter School, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
As is apparent from this Amended Order, although Plaintiffs' ongoing claim against The Villages Charter School, Inc. involves one of the same statutes, that claim is premised on entirely separate facts against a different defendant such that "neither the same issues nor facts would be before the reviewing court more than once.” See Explosives Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486-87 (11th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato (2×)
Minn. · 2015 · confidence medium
And most federal courts reviewing the issue have held that although stated reasoning from the district court is preferred, it is not necessary for proper certification. 2 See, e.g., Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982) (holding that the articulated reasons do not need to be in the judgment); Bank of Lincolnwood v. Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gross v. Pirtle
10th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co., 782 F.2d 58, 61 (6th Cir.1986)); Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 2 F.3d 1331, 1336 (4th Cir.1993), while other circuits do not mandate such explanation but find it desirable, see, e.g., Hayden v. McDonald, 719 F.2d 266, 269 (8th Cir.1983); Explosives Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Asbestos Workers Medical Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 1999 · confidence medium
Lowenstein Corp., 715 F.2d 128, 132 (4th Cir.1983) (possibility of repetitive appellate review not sufficiently foreclosed to justify certification of the judgment as final under Rule 54(b)); Explosives Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486-87 (11th Cir.1982) (certification appropriate because court of appeals would not need to review same issues nor same facts on separate appeals given the distinct nature of the claims); Arlinghaus v. Ritenour, 543 F.2d 461, 464 (2d Cir.1976) (certification improper because court of appeals would likely have to review same conduct twi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brandt v. Bassett (2×)
11th Cir. · 1995 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982) (observing that the district court is not required, in every case, to express its reasoning, although “the desirability of such a statement of reasons is obvious since an explanation would assist appellate courts in reviewing district court decisions”); Braswell, 2 F.3d at 1336 (“The expression of clear and cogent findings of fact is crucial.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Morley
3rd Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Our review is again limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion, Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982), and we find no such abuse. 35 For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. * See Rule 34-2(b), Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1 We affirmed the grant of summary judgment in FDIC v. Morley, 867 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 75 , 107 L.Ed.2d 41 (1989) 2 In Gunter, we set forth a two-part inquiry to determine whether federal or st…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Deposit Insurance v. Morley
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Our review is again limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion, Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982), and we find no such abuse.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Board of Education
11th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Southeast Banking, 69 F.3d at 1546 ; see also Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982); Morrison-Knudsen Co., 655 F.2d at 965 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ebrahimi v. City Of Huntsville Board Of Education
11th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Southeast Banking, 69 F.3d at 1546 ; see also Explosives Supply Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 691 F.2d 486, 486 (11th Cir.1982); Morrison-Knudsen Co., 655 F.2d at 965 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EXPLOSIVES SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA NITROGEN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
82-7139.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 8, 1982.
691 F.2d 486
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24255
James L. Shores, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant., Laurence D. Vinson, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Godbold, Fay, Clark.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
CLARK, Circuit Judge:

Appellants, Explosives Supply Company, Inc., et ah, appeal the district court’s grant of a Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of appellees’ counterclaim. Pursuant to the mandate of Rule 54(b), [1] the district court made an express determination that no just reason for delay existed and expressly directed the entry of judgment. Appellants maintain that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the counterclaim in the absence of stated reasons as to why such a determination was made. We find no merit in such a per se requirement.

In Rothenberg v. Security Management Company, Inc., 617 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954, 101 S.Ct. 359, 66 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980), [2] the Fifth Circuit held that a district court is not required, in every case, to express its reasons for concluding that there is no just reason for delay. See In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 680 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1982). However, the desirability of such a statement of reasons is obvious since such an explanation would assist appellate courts in reviewing district court decisions. See Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company, 446 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980); Rothenberg v. Security Management Company, Inc. The articulation of reasons need not be in the judgment itself but may appear, as here, from the face of the opinion. In the instant case, the opinion of the lower court clearly shows the separability of the claims such that neither[*487] the same issues nor facts would be before the reviewing court more than once. For these reasons, we hold that the district court acted within its discretion in certifying appellees’ counterclaim.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment____
2

. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions that the Former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.