holding that the state appellate court could review a district court’s pre-remand order granting joinder of a defendant
How later courts described this case
- holding that the state appellate court could review a district court’s pre-remand order granting joinder of a defendant
- explaining that, although under the Waco doctrine “the appeal is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d), we still must determine whether the district court’s decision is a ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291”
- noting that, because the order "was interlocutory in nature, there was no opportunity for the decision to have been reviewed in the federal courts, and, as such, the decision has no preclusive effect on state courts"
- finding that order allowing join-der would not be preclusive or unreviewable after remand
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Michael Jones v. Gerald Lilly Wilford Smith Captain Hagler Howard L. Beyer, Louis Hagler, 37 F.3d 964 (1994)
Although courts have consistently rejected claims that the time and expense of litigating a suit that may later be reversed are sufficient to warrant an immediate appeal, Powers, 4 F.3d at 232, the case sub judice is factually distinguishable.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Sept. 24, 1993.
Present SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS, District Judge. *
The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other availablé circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.