From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waller v. Professional Insurance Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 29, 1963
316 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1963)

Opinion

No. 19938.

April 29, 1963.

Albert S.C. Millar, Jr., and T. Edward Austin, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., Austin, Basford Millar, Jacksonville, Fla., of counsel, for appellant.

Robert J. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., for appellees J.R. Reinhardt and J. Edwin Larson, Tallahassee, Fla.

Dean Boggs, of Boggs, Blalock Holbrook, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee Professional Ins. Corporation.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges.


This appeal is from an order denying a motion for summary judgment, and enlarging the time for answering the complaint until final determination of a suit pending in the state courts of Florida against appellee insurance company involving the same controlling legal question.

This appeal must be dismissed for the reason that each order falls in the unappealable category. On the summary judgment question, see Jones v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 123; and Atlantic Company v. Citizens Ice Coal Storage Co., 5 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 453. The enlargement order is controlled by Jackson Brewing Company v. Clarke, 5 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 844.

Costs are taxed three-fourths on appellant, and one-fourth on appellees.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Waller v. Professional Insurance Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 29, 1963
316 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1963)
Case details for

Waller v. Professional Insurance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Charlie Ervin WALLER, Appellant, v. PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE CORP., J.R…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 29, 1963

Citations

316 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

Madry v. Sorel

But that is of no help here since the order of denial was not final (see note 4, supra). But this will not…

Duke v. Gardner

It is, however, firmly established that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final decision…