Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey (U.S., 1956)

Submitted by boden-davidson on Mon, 2010-01-25 15:52

Tags:

Mackey brought suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act [Counts I and II], as well as for unlawfully inducing a beach of a contract [Count III] and unfair competition and copyright infringement [Count IV]. The District Court dismissed only the claims in Counts I and II, and the appeal followed. The appeal is allowed to proceed under the newly adopted Rule 54(b) that ameliorated the previous standard that "all claims had to be finally decided before an appeal could be entertained from a final decision upon any of them". The new Rule 54(b) did not relax the finality required, but allowed a party to bring an appeal on "one or more, but less than all" claims in a multi-claim suit, if the trial court makes an express determination that there is no jut reason for delay; and "an express direction for the entry of judgment". [...the key was that Counts III and IV were independent enough from Counts I and II.]

mobonobomo