Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Margaret Ann Fleming, a Minor, by Her Guardian, Alvin H.frankel, and Robert Fleming & Gladys, His Wife v. Donna Berardi and Anthony Berardi, Appellants.adele Rockey v. Beryle A. Raymond, Third-party Defendant
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. - 441 F.2d 732
Argued Feb. 4, 1971.Decided April 29, 1971
William T. Campbell, Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler, Philadelphia, Pa. (William J. McKinley, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
David I. Grunfeld, Steinberg, Greenstein, Richman & Price, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before McLAUGHLIN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges and HANNUM, District judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
On review of the record, showing, inter alia, that the appeal challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss the action, we do not reach the merits.1
In accordance with Commonwealth of Pennyslvania v. Brown, 3 Cir., 373 F.2d 771, at 776, where the court said:
'It is settled that denial of a motion to dismiss, even when the motion is based on jurisdictional grounds, is not immediately reviewable.' Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 236, 65 S.Ct. 631, 635, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945).
for lack of an appealable order, this appeal will be dismissed.
Appellants urge the applicability here of Groh v. Brooks, 421 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1970), which held merely that the District Court was justified in its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice to its reinstatement if defendants did not in fact waive the statute of limitations in the state court under the facts in that case. The state court had not refused to hear the case as here