context: We do not, at this time, reach the merits of the issues raised by Palmer, because we hold that our jurisdiction over this premature appeal has not yet been established. See Tuck v. United Servs.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 859 F.2d 842, 844
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing federal court's duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking
citation_a.sentence: Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988) (recognizing federal court’s duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1534, 103 L.Ed.2d 839 (1989); see, e.g., In re Watson, 884 F.2d 879, 879-80 (5th Cir.1989) (same principle applied where bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) is questioned).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 884 F.2d 879, 879-80
citation_b.parenthetical: same principle applied where bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. SS 158(d
citation_b.sentence: Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988) (recognizing federal court’s duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1534, 103 L.Ed.2d 839 (1989); see, e.g., In re Watson, 884 F.2d 879, 879-80 (5th Cir.1989) (same principle applied where bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) is questioned).