Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

255 F.2d 100

Docket No. 17079.

Shotkin v. Popenhager

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 7, 1958.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1958.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1958-05-07

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1964

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co. · Marten v. Hess · Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1958-05-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bernard M. Shotkin, in pro. per.

¶2Charles H. Wakeman, Jr., Miami, Fla., John R. Lindsey, Coral Gables, Fla., for appellees.

¶3Before TUTTLE, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. It being apparent from the record that plaintiff’s notice of appeal was not timely, being filed after the 30 days prescribed by Rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the merits of the judgment of the District Court need not be discussed.

¶6The complaint, filed on June 18, 1957, was dismissed by the Court with prejudice on July 25, 1957. On August 6, 1957 the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for rehearing, and it was not until September 10, 1957 that the notice of appeal was filed. Since the time requirement of Rule 73(a) is mandatory and jurisdictional, Waddell v. Chicago Land Clearance Commission, 7 Cir., 206 F.2d 748; Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers of America, 6 Cir., 195 F.2d 612, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 822, 73 S.Ct. 21, 97 L.Ed. 640; Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834, the right of appeal is lost and this appeal must be dismissed.

¶7Appeal dismissed.

/255/f2d/100 · .json · Public domain