Doris Nyyssonen, Administratrix of the Estate of Einard Nyyssonen, Deceased v. Bendix Corporation

First Circuit

Doris Nyyssonen, Administratrix of the Estate of Einard Nyyssonen, Deceased v. Bendix Corporation

356 F.2d 193, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 403, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1489, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7211

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1966

Docket6189

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 356 F.2d 193 (Doris Nyyssonen, Administratrix of the Estate of Einard Nyyssonen, Deceased v. Bendix Corporation) 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

Doris Nyyssonen, Administratrix of the Estate of Einard Nyyssonen, Deceased v. Bendix Corporation, 356 F.2d 193, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 403, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1489, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7211 (1st Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Nyyssonen, brought suit for infringement of two patents. The district court found both to be invalid and not infringed. On appeal we affirmed the finding of noninfringement, but declined to consider the question of validity. Nyyssonen v. Bendix Corp., 1 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 531. Plaintiff moved for rehearing, alleging a number of derelictions, if not complete abdication, of our judicial function. Upon our denial without opinion, plaintiff sought certiorari. This was denied October 11, 1965, 382 U.S. 847, 86 S.Ct. 63, 15 L.Ed.2d 86.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion in. this court

* for leave to file, in the dis[194]*194trict court, a motion under Rule 60(b) (1), (2), (3) and (6). In part the proffered motion asks the district court to reverse itself for lack of consideration of plaintiff’s case in its original decision. This would be improper for -a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is clearly time barred. Rules 60(b), 6(b); see Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 9 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 622, 628-29; 7 Moore, Federal Practice 319-21 (2d ed. 1955).

Examination of the remainder of the motion discloses that it is but a thinly disguised attempt to induce the district court to reverse the decision of this court. For example: “There was no evidence to support this holding * * * [of the Court of Appeals]”; “[T]he plaintiff has never had her day in court * * * ”; “The ruling of the Court of Appeals * * * constituted mistake and inadvertence on the part of the Court of Appeals.” In one instance the plaintiff speaks of new evidence. It is not alleged to be newly discovered, but is described merely as evidence which would meet a supposed misconception in our opinion.

It is our province, and apart from review by the Supreme Court, our province only, to correct errors in our decisions. The motion which plaintiff desires to file in the district court would be entirely without its jurisdiction. The motion for leave to present these matters to the district court is frivolous.

Treating the motion, or the proposed motion, as a further application for rehearing, it must also be denied. It contains nothing of substance that could not have been asserted in a timely motion in response to our original opinion. Indeed, much of the motion merely restates plaintiff’s original petition. We do not propose, after one petition for rehearing and a petition for certiorari have been denied, to entertain successive petitions of such a nature.

The motion for leave to file is denied.

This was, of course, the proper procedure. Wilson Research Corp. v. Piolite Plastics Corp., 1 Cir., 1964, 336 F.2d 303.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Nyyssonen, brought suit for infringement of two patents. The district court found both to be invalid and not infringed. On appeal we affirmed the finding of noninfringement, but declined to consider the question of validity. Nyyssonen v. Bendix Corp., 1 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 531. Plaintiff moved for rehearing, alleging a number of derelictions, if not complete abdication, of our judicial function. Upon our denial without opinion, plaintiff sought certiorari. This was denied October 11, 1965, 382 U.S. 847, 86 S.Ct. 63, 15 L.Ed.2d 86.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion in. this court

* for leave to file, in the dis[194]*194trict court, a motion under Rule 60(b) (1), (2), (3) and (6). In part the proffered motion asks the district court to reverse itself for lack of consideration of plaintiff’s case in its original decision. This would be improper for -a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is clearly time barred. Rules 60(b), 6(b); see Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 9 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 622, 628-29; 7 Moore, Federal Practice 319-21 (2d ed. 1955).

Examination of the remainder of the motion discloses that it is but a thinly disguised attempt to induce the district court to reverse the decision of this court. For example: “There was no evidence to support this holding * * * [of the Court of Appeals]”; “[T]he plaintiff has never had her day in court * * * ”; “The ruling of the Court of Appeals * * * constituted mistake and inadvertence on the part of the Court of Appeals.” In one instance the plaintiff speaks of new evidence. It is not alleged to be newly discovered, but is described merely as evidence which would meet a supposed misconception in our opinion.

It is our province, and apart from review by the Supreme Court, our province only, to correct errors in our decisions. The motion which plaintiff desires to file in the district court would be entirely without its jurisdiction. The motion for leave to present these matters to the district court is frivolous.

Treating the motion, or the proposed motion, as a further application for rehearing, it must also be denied. It contains nothing of substance that could not have been asserted in a timely motion in response to our original opinion. Indeed, much of the motion merely restates plaintiff’s original petition. We do not propose, after one petition for rehearing and a petition for certiorari have been denied, to entertain successive petitions of such a nature.

The motion for leave to file is denied.

This was, of course, the proper procedure. Wilson Research Corp. v. Piolite Plastics Corp., 1 Cir., 1964, 336 F.2d 303.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 193, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 403, 10 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1489, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doris-nyyssonen-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-einard-nyyssonen-deceased-ca1-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack