CSX Transp., Inc. v. May

933 F.2d 1007, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16786, 1991 WL 85309
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 21, 1991
Docket91-5204
StatusUnpublished

This text of 933 F.2d 1007 (CSX Transp., Inc. v. May) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CSX Transp., Inc. v. May, 933 F.2d 1007, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16786, 1991 WL 85309 (6th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

933 F.2d 1007

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Cheryl Lynn MAY, Charles G. May, Charles G. May, as partner
trading and doing business under the name of C & G
Trucking Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellants,
Glenn David May, Glenn David May, as partner trading and
doing business under the name of C & G Trucking
Company, Inc., Defendants.

No. 91-5204.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 21, 1991.

Before ALAN E. NORRIS and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The defendants appeal the district court's order of January 8, 1991, awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff in this diversity trespass action. The notice of appeal was filed on February 8, 1991.

Because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty (30) days of the district court's order as provided in Rule 4(a)(1), Fed.R.App.P., the clerk of this court entered an order on March 4, 1991, directing the defendants to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The defendants have not responded to the show cause order.

Compliance with the time limits of Rule 4(a)(1) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 203 (1988). The defendants not having shown their notice of appeal was timely filed or that they applied for or received an extension of time in which to file such notice under Rule 4(a)(5), Fed.R.App.P., we are without jurisdiction in this appeal.

It therefore is ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

Related

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
486 U.S. 196 (Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
933 F.2d 1007, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16786, 1991 WL 85309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/csx-transp-inc-v-may-ca6-1991.