Catlin v. United States
- Decided
- February 26, 1945
- Docket
- 419
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,668 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · JAMES v. RPS HOLDINGS, LLC
What later courts said
- holding that Greater Anchorage Area Borough did not apply to remand orders from the superior court acting in its appellate capacity — Martech Construction Co. v. Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. (1993)
- holding that a final order “generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute judgment” — Puerto Rico Ports Authority v. Barge Katy-B, O.N. 606665 (2005)
- holding that §128 of the Judicial Code (now 28 U. S. C. §1291) limits review to decisions that “en[d] the litigation on the merits and leav[e] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” — Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Rutledge delivered the opinion of the Court.
The proceeding is for the condemnation of land in Madison County, Illinois, under the War Purposes Act of 1917. [1]
The question for review is whether orders entered in the [*231] course of the proceedings are appealable as “final decisions” within the meaning of § 128 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 225 (a). [2]
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 225
- 50 U.S.C. § 171
Cite this
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.