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
Ferdie Meche, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dan-tex International, Inc., et al., Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 681 F.2d 264
July 16, 1982
Guglielmo & Lopez, James T. Guglielmo, Peter F. Caviness, Opelousas, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Barsh & Hunter, Donald A. Hoffman, Robert I. Siegel, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, RANDALL and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
Appellant Meche seeks to appeal an interlocutory award of fees and expenses made pursuant to Rule 30(g)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Meche concedes the order is interlocutory but claims it is nevertheless appealable under the rule of Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). We agree with our brethren of the Ninth Circuit, however, that Cohen appeals may not be taken from orders that "effectively may be reviewed and corrected if and when final judgment results." Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215, 1216 (1980) (quoting from 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225). This, like the Rule 37(a)(4) order in Pflocks, is such an order.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.
Permitting such awards where a party, in person or by counsel, attends a noticed deposition but the witness, for want of having been subpoenaed, does not