The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More41, 27 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1970); Washington Hospital Center v. Cheeks, 394 F.2d 964, 965-66 (D.C.Cir.1968), Defendants here would not be seriously prejudiced if plaintiffs were permitted to amend the pretrial order to include an allegation that defendants' promises were fraudulent when made.
719 F.2d 405, ***Lewis Chevroletv.First Nat'l Bank, 83-8428, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit, 10/18/83, 1, N.D.Ga., AFFIRMED, *, Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 11th Cir. R. 23, **, Local Rule: 25 case
720 F.2d 686, *First Ala. Bank of Dothanv.Bell, 83-7221, 83-7222, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit, 11/2/83, 1, M.D.Ala., REVERSED, 2, * Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 11th Cir. R. 23.
Cavcar Company v. M/V SUZDAL, No. 77-0274, 3, The secondary issues are insubstantial:, Appellee Finn Amer contends that Auto Pars is not entitled to present to this court its claim that the Finn Amer was liable in rem because the question was not properly presented to the district court.
719 F.2d 402, *Fieldsv.First Natchez Bank, 83-4243, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit, 10/18/83, 1, S.D.Miss., AFFIRMED, 2, * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 34.2.
724 F.2d 127, Trahan (J.C.)v.First National Bank of Ruston, NO. 83-4139, United States Court of Appeals, fifth Circuit., DEC 29, 1983, Appeal From: W.D.La., 720 F.2d 832, 1, Denials of Rehearing En Banc.
Cross-appealing, Mr. Trahan complained to us of the refusal of the district court to award monetary damages, which would have permitted him to benefit from the elevated stock price between the date of conversion and the date of judgment. Rule 60(a) does not empower the court to change it.
714 F.2d 157, ***Florida First Nat'l Bankv.Delph, 83-3190, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit, 8/9/83, 1, M.D.Fla., AFFIRMED, 2, * Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 11th Cir. R. 23., ** Local Rule 25 case.
That question is governed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1293(b), under which we have jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments, orders, or decrees of district courts in bankruptcy cases. The District Court has finally determined that it lacks jurisdiction of Bayer's appeal from the Bankruptcy Court.
The district court held that because the EEOC had not completed its investigation of the charges and had not issued a right to sue letter to plaintiffs, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints for preliminary relief pending resolution of complaints pending with the EEOC.
723 F.2d 192, 41 Fair Empl., 1, Gillette appeals from an order of the district court awarding certain damages to the plaintiff, Samuel Jones, under a settlement agreement. Gillette agreed to waive any right to appeal from the district court's determinations of the named plaintiffs' claims.
As the defendants did not oppose the motion with respect to the pendent claim, and could not reasonably have done so since the dismissal of that claim on the merits was clear error, the plaintiffs had no reason to think they should take additional steps such as filing an appeal with this court.
, 14, The Soto plaintiffs intervened in this case and along with the Senate Judiciary Committee defendants appealed from the judgment of the district court.2, 15, The defendants below sought a stay of the district court's order. 144, 70 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1981).
In carrying out its duties, the City chose to use population figures that would be eight years old by the time of the election despite the fact that it was forwarned that that data would significantly overstate the total population of the City and significantly understate the minority proportions.
Lilly, Deputy Sol., 5, That subsection provides: The Governor shall approve any request to be a service delivery area from any consortium of contiguous units of general local government with an aggregate population of 200, 000 or more which serves a substantial part of a labor market area.
725 F.2d 1, 222 U.S.P.Q., COFFIN, Circuit Judge. Moreover, the district court was not constrained to award only an amount equal to plaintiffs' lost license fees, so the question of what plaintiffs would have received had defendants bought an ASCAP license is not determinative.
Although the exercise of county powers extends only to county purposes, N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. If county consortia extending over multiple LMAs had been intended to be able to claim compulsory SDA designation, the labor market area requirement in subsection (ii) would have been superfluous;
723 F.2d 189, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Brian A. MOLLER-BUTCHER, et al. are objections to nonfinal orders of the trial court, which this court, by statute, is without jurisdiction to review. 3081, 3082, 73 L. Ed. 2d 754 (1982) (per curiam) (motion to dismiss indictment);
725 F.2d 665, Vecchio (Mary F.)v.Alza Pharmaceuticals, Division of Alza Corporation, NO. 83-1474, United States Court of Appeals, first Circuit., DEC 01, 1983, 1, Appeal From: D.Mass., 2, AFFIRMED.
714 F.2d 130, Halev.First Nat. Bank of Keystone, 83-1460, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fourth Circuit, 7/27/83, S.D.W.Va., 560 F. Supp. 854, AFFIRMED
