Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

154 F.2d 13

Docket No. 9146.

Maghan v. Young

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 18, 1946.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1946-02-18

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Shortly after the adoption of the new Rules we did grant relief in a somewhat similar case, on the ground that the Rules were new and that it was unlikely counsel had sufficiently acquainted themselves with their terms, but we were careful on that occasion to advise the Bar that we intended thereafter to exercise sparingly our discretion to save an appeal prosecuted in disregard of the Rules.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley

“professionally engaged in attending to other matters”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 342 F. Supp. 3d 1 - Bazarian Int'l Fin. Assocs., LLC v. Desarrollos Hotelco, C.A.

Relies on Burke v. Canfield

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1946-02-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Selph v. Council of Los Angeles (1979), Maryland Casualty Co. v. Conner (1967)

29 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

13019461950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1Mr. James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Mr. Chester H. Gray, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.

¶3Before GRONER, C. J., and EDGER-TON and PRETTYMAN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This case is before us on appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the record within the time allowed under the rules.1

¶6The record shows that the order of the District Court appealed from was entered June 5, 1945. Notice of appeal was filed August 31, 1945. On October 8th (within the forty-day period after the filing of notice of appeal) the time for filing the record in this Court was extended by the District Court to November 5th. On November 1st (within the time limit as extended) the time was again extended by the District Court to November 24th. On November 27th — the record not then having been filed — appellees filed in this Court under Rule 75(j) a preliminary record and moved to dismiss, notice of which was duly served on appellant’s attorney of record. On November 29th appellant filed objections to the motion to dismiss, admitting the default, hut asking us to overlook it for “excusable neglect.” The explanation of appellant’s neglect is that appellant’s counsel was professionally engaged in attending to other matters. We think this is not an adequate reason to justify our exercise of discretion.

¶7Shortly after the adoption of the new Rules we did grant relief in a somewhat similar case, on the ground that the Rules were new and that it was unlikely counsel had sufficiently acquainted themselves with their terms, but we were careful on that occasion to advise the Bar that we intended thereafter to exercise sparingly our discretion to save an appeal prosecuted in disregard of the Rules.2 In accordance with that ruling we have since, we think, invariably declined to extend relief, except for convincing reasons, where, as is the case here, appellee after appellant’s default has himself filed a preliminary record and moved to dismiss.

¶8The reasons advanced in the present case show neglect, but fail to show excusable neglect.3 Accordingly we are granting appellees’ motion, and an order will be entered dismissing the appeal.

¶9Appeal dismissed.

/154/f2d/13 · .json · Public domain