From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leopold v. Fitzgerald

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 14, 1970
421 F.2d 838 (2d Cir. 1970)

Summary

noting that the court cannot, under Rule 54(b), review a decision concerning only "a part of a single claim" or a decision that denies relief pursuant to a "single legal theory of recovery" where alternative theories have also been presented

Summary of this case from In re Ishihara Chemical Co.

Opinion

No. 416, Docket 34018.

Submitted January 12, 1970.

Decided January 14, 1970.

Arthur E. Arnow, New York City (Michaels Michaels Wigdor, Stuart S. Sherman, New York City, of counsel), submitted brief for appellant.

David L. Katsky (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., New York City, Peter R. DeFilippi, New York City, of counsel), submitted brief for appellees.

Before KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and LEVET, District Judge.

Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.


Leopold appeals from an order granting summary judgment on Item 1 of his prayer for relief in a declaratory judgment action attacking his dismissal from the Internal Revenue Service. That item sought a declaration that failure to produce Leopold's immediate superior, Church, at a Civil Service Commission hearing, violated Leopold's Fifth Amendment rights of confrontation. Additional items attacked the substantiality of the evidence, scope of review at the hearing, and similar alleged violations of appropriate administrative procedures. While we might be inclined to reach the merits of the diaphanous issues urged by Leopold, we are foreclosed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1964), which permits appeals only from "final judgments."

A close reading of the complaint reveals that the only claim alleged is that Leopold was improperly discharged from his position. Item 1, on which Judge Ryan granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, merely set forth one of eleven specific theories on which the dismissal is attacked. We have recognized that separable decisions with important collateral consequences may under certain circumstances be final in every practical sense while other issues remain yet to be tried, see Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin, et al., 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1035, 87 S.Ct. 1487, 18 L.Ed.2d 598 (1967); MacAlister v. Guterma, 263 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1958); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); but we have never condoned piecemeal appeals to review "a part of a single claim or, as here, to test a single legal theory of recovery." Schwartz v. Eaton, 264 F.2d 195, 196 (2d Cir. 1959); Backus Plywood Corp. v. Commercial Decal, Inc., 317 F.2d 339, 341 (2d Cir. 1963). See also Original Ballet Russe v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 189 (2d Cir. 1943).

The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Leopold v. Fitzgerald

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 14, 1970
421 F.2d 838 (2d Cir. 1970)

noting that the court cannot, under Rule 54(b), review a decision concerning only "a part of a single claim" or a decision that denies relief pursuant to a "single legal theory of recovery" where alternative theories have also been presented

Summary of this case from In re Ishihara Chemical Co.
Case details for

Leopold v. Fitzgerald

Case Details

Full title:Bertrand LEOPOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. FITZGERALD, Jr., as…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jan 14, 1970

Citations

421 F.2d 838 (2d Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

Long v. Wickett

SeeCott Bev. Corp. v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 243 F.2d 795, 796 (2d Cir. 1957); Indiana Harbor Belt R.R.…

In re Ishihara Chemical Co.

Hence, the judgment below does not appear to have resolved Ishihara's claim for discovery. See Leopold v.…