Case Citator › In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. John C. Risjord

In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. John C. Risjord

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Vacated
Court
Eighth Circuit
Citation
612 F.2d 377
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
1980–1981
Vacated
This decision was vacated (set aside), by a higher court or by the same court on rehearing, so it has no force as precedent. The history below says what replaced it. The Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment in In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation and ordered dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. All 38 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court agreed that orders denying counsel disqualification are not immediately appealable, but rejected the Eighth Circuit's decision to reach the merits anyway. Both adverse treatments are listed below; the appealability rule survives as the Supreme Court's own holding.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

38 later cases cite In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. John C. Risjord; 38 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. John C. Risjord?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Vacated

  • The Supreme Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's prospective approach to appellate jurisdiction and vacated its merits judgment, while agreeing that an order denying disqualification is not immediately appealable.

    Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Although it did not hear oral argument on the appeal, the Eighth Circuit decided the case en banc and affirmed the trial court’s order permitting petitioner to continue representing the plaintiffs.8 In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability, 612 E. 2d 377 (1980). ... We hold that a district court’s order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is not appealable under § 1291 prior to final judgment in the underlying litigation.14 Insofar as the Eighth Circuit reached this conclusion, its decision is correct. But because its decision was contrary to precedent in the Circuit, the court went further and reached the merits of the order appealed from. This approach, however, overlooks the fact that the finality requirement embodied in § 1291 is jurisdictional in nature. ... A court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction, and thus, by definition, a jurisdictional ruling may never be made prospective only. We therefore hold that because the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it was without authority to decide the merits.15 Con*380sequently, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The First Circuit declined to follow the Eighth Circuit's decision to reach the merits of a disqualification order after holding the appeal unavailable.

    In re Continental Investment Corp. · First Circuit · filed

    Finally, we decline to follow the lead of the several circuits that have recently gone on to decide the merits of a denied disqualification motion before them in the case in which they held such denials generally not appealable. See Armstrong v. McAlpin, supra; In re Multi-piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, supra; Melamed v. ITT Continental Baking Co., supra.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. John C. Risjord and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace