Thomas W. Hill v. Dep't of the Air Force Paul J. Vallerie, & Paul S. Britt, 884 F.2d 1321 (10th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas W. Hill v. Dep't of the Air Force Paul J. Vallerie, & Paul S. Britt, 884 F.2d 1321 (10th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Meliani v. Jade Dunn Loring Metro, LLC (vaed, 2003-10-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meliani v. Jade Dunn Loring Metro, LLC
E.D. Va. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Geris v. Resolution Trust Corp., Nos. 94-1095, 94-1603, 1994 WL 525052 , at *1 (4th Cir. Sept. 28, 1994) (affirming the district court's order directing plaintiff to “either remove the notice of lis pendens from the subject properties within ten days, or to post a supersedeas bond to protect the [defendant’s] losses”); Hill v. Air Force, 884 F.2d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir.1989) (remanding the case to the district court instructing the court to quash the notice of lis pendens). 3 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jarvis
10th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hill v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 884 F.2d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Orange County, California Airport Hotel Associates, a California Limited Partnership v. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hill v. Department of the Air Force, 884 F.2d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir.1989); S.B.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kelliher v. Soundy
Neb. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Hill v. Department of Air Force, 884 F.2d 1321 (10th Cir. 1989). 13 See, Orange Cty. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 52 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995); Demenus v. Tinton 35 Inc., 873 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Parrett
6th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Hill v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 884 F.2d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir.1989) (holding that district court’s denial of motion to quash a notice of lis pendens was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine); S.B.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Parrett
6th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Hill v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 884 F.2d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir.1989) (holding that district court’s denial of motion to quash a notice of lis pendens was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine); S.B.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas W. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE; Paul J. Vallerie, Defendants, and Paul S. Britt, Defendant-Appellant
88-2917.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 5, 1989.
884 F.2d 1321
John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., John F. Cordes, Barbara L. Herwig, and Howard S. Scher, Attys., Civ. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., Rhonda P. Backinoff, G. Patrick Elder, and Douglas C. Henson, Asst. U.S. At-tys., W. Patrick Harman, Butt, Thornton & Baehr, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendants and defendant-appellant., Thomas W. Hill, pro se.
McKay, Anderson, Brown.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1)
PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Paul S. Britt appeals from the October 31, 1988, order of the district court denying Britt’s motion to quash a notice of lis pendens placed by plaintiff Thomas W. Hill on Britt’s residence. Hill has filed a motion to dismiss alleging this court does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Britt has responded.

Upon consideration of the briefs, relevant district court papers, and relevant case law, we conclude that we do have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The district court’s order is a collateral order appealable under the principles set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), and Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978).

We further conclude the district court erred in refusing to quash the notice of lis pendens. N.M.Stat.Ann. § 38-1-14 (1987) provides in part:

In all actions in the district court of this state or in the United States district court for the district of New Mexico affecting the title to real estate in this state, the plaintiff ... may record with the county clerk of each county in which the property may be situate a notice of the pendency of the suit....

Hill has filed an action seeking damages against Britt, not an action involving Britt’s property. The filing of a notice of lis pendens in anticipation of a money judgment is prohibited. See Hamilton v. Smith, 808 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir.1986) (construing a similar Utah statute). Accordingly, Hill’s filing of the notice of lis pendens was impermissible under the New Mexico statute.

The October 31,1988, order of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the district court with instructions that the notice of lis pendens be quashed. The motion to dismiss is DE[*1323] NIED. We have received and considered Britt’s supplemental authority.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.