Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

349 U.S. 46

Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided April 11, 1955

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that (any) untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner's notice of appeal.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Morrison v. Nielsen, Ecker v. Replogle (In Re Replogle)

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1917 · 28 U.S.C. § 2107

Relies on Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 9–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided April 11, 1955

How this case has been cited

Cited by 338 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Houston v. Lack (1988), United States v. Ohio Power Co. (1957)

163 federal appellate · 16 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 11 states

94019551960197019801990200020102020decided

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 →

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

The judgment is reversed. The petitioner's notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the Distrct Court for the Northern District of New York, together with his appeal bond, was received at the office of the Clerk of the District Court within the 30 days prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2107, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2107, for filing a notice of appeal. In dispatching these papers the petitioner inadvertently failed to include the $5 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1917, to be paid 'upon the filing' of a notice of appeal. The Clerk notified the petitioner of his omission, and declined to 'file' the notice of appeal until he received the $5 fee three or four days later. By that time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. Upon petitioner's motion the District Court made a nunc pro tunc order according the notice of appeal a filing date as of the date it was originally received by the Clerk.

¶2

The Court of Appeals, without opinion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner's notice of appeal. Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 9 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 705, we disapprove. Our conclusion does not leave § 1917 without other sanctions.

¶3

Reversed.

/349/us/46 · .json · Public domain