Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03244/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom Daly
Appellee
Norman Richardson
Appellant
Owen Sully
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Statns Court of AppealG Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

NORMAN RICHARDSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

OWEN SULLY and TOM DALY, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

!JOV 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3244 

(D.C. No. 90-3437-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter is before us for consideration of our Order 

directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties have responded, 

and the case is at issue. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3244 Document: 010110093075 Date Filed: 11/01/1991 Page: 1 
The appeal was taken either from an Order resolving numerous 

outstanding motions, or from the Pretrial Order, or both. Neither 

Order is final within the meaning of 28 u.s.c. S 1291. An order 

is final for purposes of appeal only when it ends litigation on 

the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute 

judgment. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay* 437 U.S. 463, 467 

(1978)(citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)); 

In re Glover, Inc., 697 F.2d 907, 909 (10th Cir. 1983). The 

finality requirement of this section is jurisdictional in nature. 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379 (1981). 

The Orders that are the subject of this appeal are routine 

orders entered in the course of ongoing litigation. They are 

neither final nor do they fall within a recognized exception to 

the finality rule. See generally Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). 

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction. The appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 91-3244 Document: 010110093075 Date Filed: 11/01/1991 Page: 2