County of Imperial, in and for the State of California, and City of El Centro, California v. United States of America (Small Business Administration)

Good Law
348 F.2d 904·1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5046
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 30, 196519751California501 words

Opinion

Opinion

A motion was made and granted in the district court for summary judgment (after a stipulation of all facts) holding plaintiff’s tax liens had been extinguished by defendant’s acquisition of title in foreclosure proceedings.

It is undisputed that this summary judgment was filed July 10, 1964 (Tr. 62). An “Amended Judgment” was filed July 30, 1964 (Tr. 65). This added a description of a second parcel to the real property described in the first judgment. A “Second Amended Judgment” was filed August 13,1964, and entered August 14,1964. This states the amendment was to correct “a clerical error,” and changed a March 8, 1959 date to March 1, 1959 (Tr. 51).

Notice of appeal was filed October 12, 1964.

The government takes the position that the “proper judgment” attempted to be appealed from is the July 10th, 1964 judgment; that the two subsequent judgments “revised in immaterial ways.” We do not agree. The inclusion of the second parcel in the July 30th, 1964 judgment was a material change, and a substantial one. We can envision cases where such an addition might require an appeal, while without it, no appeal would be desired by a losing litigant below. We come to this conclusion…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.