Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cunningham Vs. Hamilton County

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 14, 1999

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

55 entries 3 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. Richardson-merrell Inc. Vs. Koller US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1985
  2. Mitchell Vs. Forsyth US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1985
  3. Karcher Vs. May US Supreme Court · Dec 01, 1987
  4. Cunningham v. Hamilton
    Search
  5. County - 527 U.S. 198 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Cunningham V. Hamilton
    Search
  6. the merits, and are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action, e. g., Swint v. Chambers
    Search
  7. it neither ended the litigation nor left the court only to execute its judgment, see, e. g., Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United
    Search
  8. a Rule 37(a) sanctions order, however, cannot remain completely separate from the merits. See, e. g., Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  9. where they might have a personal interest in seeking vindication from the sanctions order. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller
    Search
  10. four witnesses-Rex Smith, Roxanne Dieffenbach, and two individual defendants-be deposed on July 25, 1996. Starcher v. Correctional
    Search
  11. for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Starcher v. Correctional
    Search
  12. Swint v. Chambers
    Search
  13. County Comm'n, 514 U. S. 35, 42 (1995) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  14. Compare, e. g., Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik
    Search
  15. F.2d 944 , 946-951 (CA3 1981) (order not immediately appealable), with Telluride Management Solutions, Inc. v. Telluride
    Search
  16. Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United
    Search
  17. that an appeal ordinarily will not lie until after final judgment has been entered in a case. See, e. g., Quackenbush v. Allstate
    Search
  18. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop
    Search
  19. U. S. 424 , 430 (1985). As we explained in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
    Search
  20. Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard
    Search
  21. U. S. 517 , 521-522 (1988) (quoting Catlin v. United
    Search
  22. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf
    Search
  23. an order directed at a party to the litigation is immediately appealable. E. g., Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  24. become final merely because it is directed at someone other than a plaintiff or defendant. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller
    Search
  25. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  26. importance of the information sought or the adequacy or truthfulness of a response. See, e. g., Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara
    Search
  27. order, but not held in contempt, generally may not appeal the order. See, e. g., United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion
    Search
  28. Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  29. Webster Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt
    Search
  30. Alexander v. United
    Search
  31. States, 201 U. S. 117 , 121 (1906). 206 v. New
    Search
  32. Evanson v. Union
    Search
  33. of decisions holding that one who is not a party to a judgment generally may not appeal from it. See, e. g., Karcher v. May
    Search
  34. substantially from the parties', attorneys assume an ethical obligation to serve their clients' interests. Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  35. see also Flanagan v. United
    Search
  36. against treating attorneys like other nonparties for purposes of appeal. Cf. United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion
    Search
  37. Willy v. Coastal
    Search
  38. if the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order or denying the stay. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller
    Search
  39. Products Antitrust Litigation, 747 F.2d 1303 , 1305-1306 (CA9 1984). In United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion
    Search
  40. Syllabus Cunningham V. Hamilton
    Search
  41. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller
    Search
  42. Starcher v. Correctional
    Search
  43. Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  44. Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik
    Search
  45. Telluride Management Solutions, Inc. v. Telluride
    Search
  46. Quackenbush v. Allstate
    Search
  47. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
    Search
  48. Catlin v. United
    Search
  49. Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara
    Search
  50. United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial