Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Ceola Cooks v. Roland A. Fowler, T/a J. Edward Fowler and Son, 437 F.2d 669 (1971)

Citation
Ceola Cooks v. Roland A. Fowler, T/a J. Edward Fowler and Son, 437 F.2d 669 (1971)
Parent Document
Ceola Cooks v. Roland A. Fowler, T/a J. Edward Fowler and Son, 437 F.2d 669 (1971)
Effective Date
1971-01-12

Other Sections in This Document (96)

Full Text

724 chars
Bell v. Tsintolas Realty Co., 139 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 430 F.2d 474 (1970), and we perceive no basis for distinguishing protective orders framed with a view to a prospective appeal. Both types seem to fall within the collateral order doctrine articulated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Compare Redding & Co. v. Russwine Const. Corp., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 417 F.2d 721 (1969). Dispossession of the tenant for noncompliance with a protective order invariably threatens serious consequences for the tenant. It is unclear as to whether, after eviction, the main issues — which comprise the appeal on the merits- — could survive a claim of mootness. Compare, e. g.,