Davis v. Nelson

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. Nelson

285 F.2d 214, 1961 A.M.C. 894

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 1960

DocketNo. 8197

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 285 F.2d 214 (Davis v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Nelson, 285 F.2d 214, 1961 A.M.C. 894 (4th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed, for laches, the libel of the present appellant, a longshoreman who sustained injuries in 1949, but did not bring his action against the ship until 1956.

As this delay of nearly seven years exceeds any possibly applicable limitations period, it became the duty of the libellant to plead and prove facts negativing a presumption of prejudice from inexcusable delay. The presumption would be against prejudice if suit had been brought during the legal period of limitations. No allegations were made in the libel in an effort to illuminate the issue, but the court held a hearing, at which there was no showing sufficient to excuse or justify the delay, or to negative prejudice.

For the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, 190 F.Supp. 137, the order of dismissal is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed, for laches, the libel of the present appellant, a longshoreman who sustained injuries in 1949, but did not bring his action against the ship until 1956.

As this delay of nearly seven years exceeds any possibly applicable limitations period, it became the duty of the libellant to plead and prove facts negativing a presumption of prejudice from inexcusable delay. The presumption would be against prejudice if suit had been brought during the legal period of limitations. No allegations were made in the libel in an effort to illuminate the issue, but the court held a hearing, at which there was no showing sufficient to excuse or justify the delay, or to negative prejudice.

For the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, 190 F.Supp. 137, the order of dismissal is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 F.2d 214, 1961 A.M.C. 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-nelson-ca4-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack