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
Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.in Re Michele M. Frees, D/b/a from the Heart, A/k/a Michelem. Fries, Debtor-appellee, v. Michele M. Frees, Individually and As Trustee, Plaintiff-appellee,john Gibney, Defendant-appellant,andedward Gibney; Eleanor Gibney; Stephen Segall, Defendants
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 78 F.3d 578
Submitted Feb. 13, 1996.Decided March 4, 1996
Albert Lee Sneed, Jr., VAN WINKLE, BUCK, WALL, STARNES & DAVIS, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michele M. Frees, Appellee Pro Se; David G. Gray, Jr., WESTALL, GRAY, KIMEL & CONNOLLY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for stay pending appeal of the bankruptcy court's final order and denying his motion to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED