Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Rule 54(b) allows entry of final judgment even if an uncertified counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
• holding that the district court’s discretion is to be exercised “in the interest of sound judicial administration”
• holding that in determining whether “there is no just reason for delay,” district courts “must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.”
• holding that the district court properly entered judgment under Rule 54(b) with respect to the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, even though there were still counterclaims to be adjudicated
• recognizing that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate if order represents “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate if order represents “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).