Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

271 F.2d 835

Docket No. 14922.

In re Flasphaler

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 13, 1959.

Decided Oct. 22, 1959.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1959-10-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1959

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1959-10-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Homer Brooks, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. Seth Dubin, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, presented argument for the Judges of the District Court. Messrs. Samuel D. Slade and Hershel Shanks, Attys. Dept. of Justice, filed a brief for the Judges of the District Court.

¶3Before Fahy, Washington and Dan-aher, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The notice of appeal is from an order of the District Court of November 13, 1958, in Executive Session,1 denying the *836"Petition or Motion” of appellant filed in the District Court July 80, 1958, for reconsideration by the District Court of his application for admission to the bar. The application had been denied by the District Court, holding a General Term, on March 8, 1951, and again by action of the District Court dated June 30, 1955, in the form of a letter from the Chief Judge. From neither the action of the court on March 8, 1951, nor June 30, 1955, was an appeal attempted to be prosecuted. Moreover, the motion for reconsideration filed July 30, 1958, was out of time because it failed to satisfy Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C.A. For these reasons, and without the necessity of considering other questions raised, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶6It is so ordered.

/271/f2d/835 · .json · Public domain