Dulaney v. Coppard

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 18, 1944.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1944-11-18

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The order appealed from was well within, and was a proper exercise of, the referee’s authority. There is no merit whatever in the bankrupt’s contention that the action of the referee in entering the extension order without first giving the bankrupt notice of his intention to enter it deprived the bankrupt of due process. The statute does not make notice to the bankrupt a condition of entering such orders. There is no evidence whatever that the entry of the order, without first notifying the bankrupt, deprived him of any constitutional right.” (emphasis supplied). 145 F.2d 468 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including In re Semel, In the Matter of Laurence Semel. Laurence Semel

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1944-11-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1990

7 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Albert Covington Dulaney, of San Antonio, Tex., in pro. per.

¶2Herbert Davis, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

¶3Before HUTCHESON, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The order appealed from was well within, and was a proper exercise of, the referee’s authority. There is no merit whatever in the bankrupt’s contention that the action of the referee in entering the extension order without first giving the bankrupt notice of his intention to enter it deprived the bankrupt of due process. The statute does not make notice to the bankrupt a condition of entering such orders. There is no evidence whatever that the entry of the order, without first notifying the bankrupt, deprived him of any constitutional right. The order appealed from is affirmed.