Court Opinion

ID: 9447660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:40:38.255353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:08.104988
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Petition denied. Petitioner overlooks our explicit holding that but a single claim was involved, making dismissal of the appeal necessary under the present form of F.R. 54(b). Conceivably that rule may be changed to be applicable in the ease of multiple parties as well as multiple claims in accordance with proposals of the former Advisory Committee (Report, October 1955, 55-56) now before the reconstituted Advisory Committee; but until that occurs, our decision is necessary. As to the request that we vacate the judgment below, we seriously doubt our power, since we lack jurisdiction over the appeal; but in any event, we think application to the district court, which retains full control over the interlocutory judgment, is preferable.