Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sears, Roebuck and Co. Vs. Mackey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 11, 1956

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

57 entries 3 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Girault US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
    Relied / Followed
  2. Baltimore Contractors, Inc. Vs. Bodinger US Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1955
  3. Reeves Vs. Beardall US Supreme Court · May 11, 1942
    Relied / Followed
  4. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  5. U.S. 427 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  6. U.S. 427 (1956) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  7. by court decisions. The validity of that rule is no longer questioned. In fact, it was applied by this Court in Reeves v. Beardall
    Search
  8. directly or impliedly sustaining the validity of amended Rule 54(b) as applied in the instant case, see Rieser v. Baltimore
    Search
  9. United Artists Corp. v. Masterpiece
    Search
  10. Clarksville v. United
    Search
  11. Boston Medical Supply Co. v. Lea
    Search
  12. Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass
    Search
  13. Lopinsky v. Hertz
    Search
  14. Pabellon v. Grace
    Search
  15. Rieser v. Baltimore
    Search
  16. Flegenheimer v. General
    Search
  17. Mills, Inc., 191 F.2d 237. See also Gold Seal Co. v. Weeks
    Search
  18. Sears also contends that the Court of Appeals misconstrued amended Rule 54(b). See Flegenheimer v. General
    Search
  19. lie to review a judgment that failed to adjudicate every cause of action asserted in the controversy. See Holcombe v. McKusick
    Search
  20. a judgment was not appealable if it disposed of some, but less than all, of the claims presented. See Collins v. Miller
    Search
  21. Sheppy v. Stevens
    Search
  22. was joint, a judgment was not appealable unless it terminated the action as to all the defendants. See Hohorst v. Hamburg-American
    Search
  23. separate and distinct from the others, that judgment, under some circumstances, was appealable. See Republic of China v. American
    Search
  24. Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  25. it has been held repeatedly that only Congress may define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. See Sibbach v. Wilson
    Search
  26. See Pabellon v. Grace
    Search
  27. For favorable comment on this aspect of the rule, see Dickinson v. Petroleum
    Search
  28. See Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn
    Search
  29. Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 83, cited in Reeves v. Beardall
    Search
  30. See Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  31. said has not a little kinship with the pronouncements of the Delphic oracle. The opinion in Cold Metal Process Co. v. United
    Search
  32. a wisely sanctioned, principle against piecemeal appeals governing litigation in the federal courts. See Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  33. Radio Station WOW v. Johnson
    Search
  34. that the whole of a litigation, no matter what its nature, must be completed before any appeal is allowed, see Collins v. Miller
    Search
  35. when failure to do so would preclude any effective review or would result in irreparable injury. See Forgay v. Conrad
    Search
  36. Swift & Co. v. Compania
    Search
  37. in the rest of the proceedings, and to make him await their outcome would merely cause unfairness. See Williams v. Morgan
    Search
  38. United States v. River
    Search
  39. on a set of facts separate and independent from the facts on which the remainder of the litigation was based. Reeves v. Beardall
    Search
  40. on that phase of the litigation. This provision was directed to the kind of difficulty encountered in Dickinson v. Petroleum
    Search
  41. of the certified parts of the litigation in the two cases now before the Court. Count II in Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  42. as an interlocutory order denying an injunction. In Cold Metal Process Co. v. United
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  44. Rieser v. Baltimore
    Search
  45. Gold Seal Co. v. Weeks
    Search
  46. See Flegenheimer v. General
    Search
  47. See Holcombe v. McKusick
    Search
  48. See Collins v. Miller
    Search
  49. See Hohorst v. Hamburg-American
    Search
  50. See Republic of China v. American
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial