Barbara J. Hansen, Admx. v. Trawler Snoopy, Inc.

First Circuit

Barbara J. Hansen, Admx. v. Trawler Snoopy, Inc.

384 F.2d 131, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1542, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4827, 1967 A.M.C. 2130

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1967

Docket224_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 384 F.2d 131 (Barbara J. Hansen, Admx. v. Trawler Snoopy, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbara J. Hansen, Admx. v. Trawler Snoopy, Inc., 384 F.2d 131, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1542, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4827, 1967 A.M.C. 2130 (1st Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimants-appellants on August 10, 1967, over 70 days after a judgment of exoneration in a liability proceeding originally brought on the then admiralty side of the district court, filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner moves to dismiss on the ground of untimeliness. Appellants point to 28 U.S.C. § 2107, which specifies a 90-day appeal period for admiralty cases.

The merger of the civil and admiralty sides of the court was aeeomplishedjon Juftf .171966. As~bf~tha1rdate the revised civil rules became effective, jOrder of the Supreme Court, 383 U.S. ¡1031 (1966), and all laws in conflict with them became ineffective, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072, 2073. The rules were made applicable to all cases then pending “except to the extent that in the opinion of the Court their application * * * would not be feasible or would work injustice, * * 383 U.S. 1031. In our opinion application of Rule 73(a), requiring an appeal to be taken in 30 days, transgresses neither limitation.

Unfortunately appellants continued to think they had 90 days in which to appeal. Even if such ignorance, 16 months after the revised rules were transmitted to Congress and almost a year after their effective date is, as appellants contend, “excusable neglect,”1 such neglect can extend the time only 30-mbre'days: FJLCÍvJLTíOj7773'CáT-"

It is, perhaps, to be regretted that section .2107 was not repealed-"in express terms. However, we cannot possibly’ say that it was not inconsistent with the new rules within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072, 2073. 7A Moore’s Federal Practice ffff .02[2], .64[3].

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Claimants-appellants on August 10, 1967, over 70 days after a judgment of exoneration in a liability proceeding originally brought on the then admiralty side of the district court, filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner moves to dismiss on the ground of untimeliness. Appellants point to 28 U.S.C. § 2107, which specifies a 90-day appeal period for admiralty cases.

The merger of the civil and admiralty sides of the court was aeeomplishedjon Juftf .171966. As~bf~tha1rdate the revised civil rules became effective, jOrder of the Supreme Court, 383 U.S. ¡1031 (1966), and all laws in conflict with them became ineffective, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072, 2073. The rules were made applicable to all cases then pending “except to the extent that in the opinion of the Court their application * * * would not be feasible or would work injustice, * * 383 U.S. 1031. In our opinion application of Rule 73(a), requiring an appeal to be taken in 30 days, transgresses neither limitation.

Unfortunately appellants continued to think they had 90 days in which to appeal. Even if such ignorance, 16 months after the revised rules were transmitted to Congress and almost a year after their effective date is, as appellants contend, “excusable neglect,”1 such neglect can extend the time only 30-mbre'days: FJLCÍvJLTíOj7773'CáT-"

It is, perhaps, to be regretted that section .2107 was not repealed-"in express terms. However, we cannot possibly’ say that it was not inconsistent with the new rules within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072, 2073. 7A Moore’s Federal Practice ffff .02[2], .64[3].

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 F.2d 131, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1542, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4827, 1967 A.M.C. 2130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbara-j-hansen-admx-v-trawler-snoopy-inc-ca1-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack