Source: https://casetext.com/case/us-v-68730-acres-of-land-etc-st-of-neb
Timestamp: 2018-12-19 16:10:18
Document Index: 689125621

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1292', '§ 258', '§ 128', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292']

United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land, 451 F.2d 667 | Casetext
United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land
451 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1971)
687.30 Acres of Land
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitOct 22, 1971
Alexander v. National Farmers&apos; Organization
…See United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land, 451 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied sub nom., Winnebago…
…By Order of May 25, 1971, the Court, relying principally on United States v. 687.30 Acres of Land, 319 F.…
ruling striking answer and counterclaim in condemnation action was interlocutory and not appealable
Dirk D. Snel, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Shiro Kashiwa, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard A. Dier, U.S. Atty., William J. Tighe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Omaha, Neb., Robert S. Lynch, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
The threshold issue in each case is whether the orders appealed from are appealable orders. We hold that the orders are not appealable orders and dismiss the appeals for the reasons hereinafter stated.
No. 71-1122. The Nebraska Case.
The February 3, 1971, order (1) denies the Tribe's motion to make certification of the October 23 order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b), (2) denies the Tribe's request that proceedings be stayed pending appeal of the October 23 order, and (3) denies the Tribe's request that status quo be maintained until defendants are able to appeal on the merits. The basis of the February 3 order is set out in the trial court's unreported memorandum opinion filed February 3, 1971. Therein the court states that there is little if any question about the Government's right to condemn the land and that the likelihood of the Tribe sustaining irreparable injury by the continuation of the project is at best only slight, and that it is likely that the Indians will benefit from the project.
The law with respect to our jurisdiction to entertain appeals in condemnation cases is fully stated in Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911. In Catlin, petitioner raised the issue that the taking was not authorized by law. The Court, pursuant to 46 Stat. 1421, 40 U.S.C. § 258a enacted in 1931, entered judgment in favor of the Government on its declaration of taking as authorized by the statute. The Supreme Court held that the judgment entered under such statute granting the Government possession under the declaration of taking was not an appealable order. The Court states:
"Their right to appeal rests upon § 128 of the Judicial Code. This limits review to `final decisions' in the District Court. A `final decision' generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. St. Louis, I. M. S. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28 [ 2 S.Ct. 6, 27 L.Ed. 638.] Hence, ordinarily in condemnation proceedings appellate review may be had only upon an order or judgment disposing of the whole case, and adjudicating all rights, including ownership and just compensation, as well as the right to take the property. This has been the repeated holding of decisions here." 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633.
Twenty-eight U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) permits the trial court to certify an issue for determination on an interlocutory appeal upon the basis of findings specified by the statute. If such certification is made by the trial court, the Court of Appeals in its discretion may permit an interlocutory appeal. The Tribe sought a § 1292(b) certification which was denied by the trial court in the February 3 order. The Tribe urges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the certification. We have no jurisdiction to review the trial court's denial of the § 1292(b) certificate. There is a strong policy in the law against interlocutory appeals. Section 1292(b) by its unambiguous language makes certification by the trial court a condition precedent to our right to exercise our discretion on the question of whether an interlocutory appeal will be allowed.
The February 3 ruling denying a stay pending appeal is a natural consequence of the denial of the § 1292(b) certificate. The statute provides that certification shall not stay proceedings unless the district court or a Court of Appeals so orders. The order is not appealable.
The project for which condemnation is sought in the Iowa cases is the same project involved in the Nebraska case. No request for § 1292(b) certification is sought in the Iowa cases nor is any motion for temporary injunction involved. For the reasons stated in the portion of this opinion relating to the Nebraska case, we dismiss the Iowa appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.