Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

SAMUEL E. HEBERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

In Hebert v. Monsanto Co., Texas City, Texas, 576 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1978), we entertained an appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) of an interlocutory order denying class action certification. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that such orders are not applicable. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., ___ U.S. ___, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978). These cases are substantially similar; both present a plaintiff seeking inter alia injunctive relief for himself and an alleged class of victims of employment discrimination. In Gardner, the Court held that § 1292(a)(1) does not grant jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order denying class certification. "A holding that such an order falls within § 1292(a)(1) would compromise `the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.'" ___ U.S. at ___, 98 S.Ct. at 2454. In light of the Court's ruling, we vacate our opinion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Hebert v. Monsanto Company
(Sep 18, 1978)