Professor Harriet Spiegel v. The Trustees of Tufts College

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “entry of judgment under the 4 rule should not be indulged as a matter of routine or as a magnanimous accommodation 5 to lawyers or litigants.”
• noting that \[c]learly the purpose of the rule is not to encourage broadly piecemeal appeals just because an appellant may be in a hurry\
• considering the propriety of a federal Rule 54(b) certification sua sponte because “the issue implicates the scope of our appellate jurisdiction”
• “Virtually any interlocutory appeal from a dispositive ruling said to be erroneous contains the potential for requiring a retrial.”
• “A similarity of either legal or factual issues (or both) militates strongly against invocation of Rule 54(b).” (citing Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 782 F.2d 58, 62 (6th Cir.1986) and Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1981))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).