Source: http://openjurist.org/561/f2d/1112/major-v-orthopedic-equipment-company-inc-i
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 02:44:55
Document Index: 369455598

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 1292', '§ 1291', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1291', '§ 1292']

561 F2d 1112 Major v. Orthopedic Equipment Company Inc I | OpenJurist
561 F. 2d 1112 - Major v. Orthopedic Equipment Company Inc I HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 561 F.2d.
561 F2d 1112 Major v. Orthopedic Equipment Company Inc I 561 F.2d 1112
Ralph S. MAJOR, Jr., d/b/a Major & Associates, Appellant,v.ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. and Frank I. Saemann, Appellees.
Argued Jan. 12, 1977.Decided Aug. 11, 1977.
This diversity case comes to us on appeal from the district court's order1 treating an accompanying memorandum opinion as a clarification of a previously entered injunction. As such, this is not a final order which may be appealed from under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor does it meet the special conditions for interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and (b). We therefore are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal from this order and accordingly dismiss it.
28 U.S.C. § 1291 gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts. A decree is final when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce what has been determined. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28-29, 2 S.Ct. 6, 27 L.Ed. 638 (1882). But the order accompanying the court's opinion took no action although the opinion found that Major had violated the injunction and the contract. It did not hold Major in contempt or impose any sanction. It therefore cannot be appealed as a contempt of court, either civil or criminal, and since it did not dispose of the case, the order is not final.
The order did no more than find Major had violated the prior injunction and the contract. Although it did not direct anything further to be done, it clearly anticipated that in order to dispose of the matter, OEC would take some further action before the court either to have Major held in contempt, or to avoid the injunction, or other action, any or all of them. It is therefore not a final order. See McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Ry., 146 U.S. 536, 545, 13 S.Ct. 170, 36 L.Ed. 1079 (1892); International Silver Co. v. Oneida Community, 93 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1937).
Indeed, OEC immediately filed a motion to dissolve the injunction. This motion has not been considered. Instead, the parties agreed to stay the motion until the appeal of the order to this court. In so doing, we think they ask us to render an advisory opinion, which, of course, we are without jurisdiction to do. U. S. Const. Art. III; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968).
Nor is the district court's order an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which reads:
But the district court has neither dissolved nor refused to dissolve this injunction. Nor has it continued or modified the injunction. It is simply an interpretation, not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
Because this appeal is from an order not yet final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and which does not continue, modify, dissolve, or refuse to dissolve or modify an injunction under § 1292(a)(1), it is accordingly