Skip to main content
Skip to content
1 duplicate copy in the archive
Title Match
Case File
sd-10-EFTA01363298Dept. of Justice

EFTA Document EFTA01363298

Other

Page 8 91 F.3d 385, *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807, **; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352 Because the August 17th order did not dispose of all claims against all parties and because there was no Rule 54(b) certification, the August 17th order remains interlocutory and is not appealable. See HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 632 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that order that did not resolve all the claims in the action was interlocutory and was not appealable because there was no Rule 54

Date
Unknown
Source
Dept. of Justice
Reference
sd-10-EFTA01363298
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
Loading document viewer...

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,800+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, donor-supported, and independent. Donors see no ads.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.