Case Citator › O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation

O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation

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

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
659 F.2d 340
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
1988
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation was overruled in part on when a judgment becomes final while attorney's fees remain unresolved. Hommel treated the merits judgment as nonfinal until fees were determined; the Supreme Court adopted the opposite rule in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. The Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand, LLC expressly identified this partial overruling while continuing to apply Hommel's other final judgment analysis.
More on how this was screened

Later Third Circuit opinions also continue to apply Hommel's rule that a panel cannot overrule an earlier panel. All 32 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

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.

32 later cases cite O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation; 32 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 O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court held that an unresolved attorney's fee request does not prevent a merits judgment from being final, displacing Hommel's contrary rule.

    Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    This requires, we think, a uniform rule that an unresolved issue of attorney’s fees for the litigation in. question does not prevent judgment on the merits from being final.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation 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