Dyotherm Corporation v. Turbo MacHine Company

Third Circuit

Dyotherm Corporation v. Turbo MacHine Company

434 F.2d 65, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 928, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1970

Docket18823_1

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 434 F.2d 65 (Dyotherm Corporation v. Turbo MacHine Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dyotherm Corporation v. Turbo MacHine Company, 434 F.2d 65, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 928, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6257 (3d Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

*66 OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals an order of the district court, 48 F.R.D. 380, dismissing its complaint for lack of prosecution.

Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is untimely. The district court’s order was entered on December 29, 1969. No notice of appeal was filed within 30 days thereafter. However, within the succeeding 30 days plaintiff filed what amounted to a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. It alleged excusable neglect. On February 25, 1970, the district court extended the time to file a notice of appeal until March 6, 1970. To the extent the extension exceeded 30 days, i. e., beyond February 27, 1970, it was a nullity. F.R.App;P. 26(b). No formal notice of appeal was filed by February 27, 1970. The appeal must therefore be dismissed unless, as plaintiff contends, its application for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal can itself be considered such a notice. We think it cannot. After all, the' extension merely kept plaintiff’s options open. It gave notice of its intent to appeal when it filed its untimely notice on March 4, 1970.

The appeal from the order of the district court will be dismissed.

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

*66 OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals an order of the district court, 48 F.R.D. 380, dismissing its complaint for lack of prosecution.

Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is untimely. The district court’s order was entered on December 29, 1969. No notice of appeal was filed within 30 days thereafter. However, within the succeeding 30 days plaintiff filed what amounted to a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. It alleged excusable neglect. On February 25, 1970, the district court extended the time to file a notice of appeal until March 6, 1970. To the extent the extension exceeded 30 days, i. e., beyond February 27, 1970, it was a nullity. F.R.App;P. 26(b). No formal notice of appeal was filed by February 27, 1970. The appeal must therefore be dismissed unless, as plaintiff contends, its application for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal can itself be considered such a notice. We think it cannot. After all, the' extension merely kept plaintiff’s options open. It gave notice of its intent to appeal when it filed its untimely notice on March 4, 1970.

The appeal from the order of the district court will be dismissed.

Shareholders Sheridan Broadcasting Corp. v. Sound Radio, Inc. Ta Wnjr, Radio 1430 Daniel E. Robinson Jerome J. La Penna, Esq. Sound Radio, Inc. T/a Wnjr Radio, 1430, Debtor. Sheridan Broadcasting Corp. v. Sound Radio, Inc. Jerome J. La Penna. Sound Radio, Inc., Debtor. Jerome J. Lapenna & Associates, P.C.

109 F.3d 873 (Third Circuit, 1997)

Snow v. Capitol Terrace, Inc.

602 A.2d 121 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1992)

Longstreth v. City Of Tulsa

948 F.2d 1193 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)

Burdeshaw v. White

585 So. 2d 842 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1991)

Joseph L. Best v. J.H. Griffin, Superintendent, D.T. Parks, Assistant Superintendent, R.L. Sharpe, Unit P/A

884 F.2d 1387 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)

Keller v. Petsock

849 F.2d 839 (Third Circuit, 1988)

In re Botany Industries, Inc.

19 B.R. 599 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)

Selby v. Money

403 So. 2d 218 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1981)

Jones v. Wolfson

514 F. Supp. 187 (S.D. New York, 1981)

Edward Moore v. W. Raymond Nelson, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut

611 F.2d 434 (Second Circuit, 1979)

Jacqueline Selph v. Council of the City of Los Angeles

593 F.2d 881 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)

In the Matter of Orbitec Corporation, Bankrupt. May McCormack v. Robert B. Schindler, Trustee

520 F.2d 358 (Second Circuit, 1975)

Linabary v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

376 F. Supp. 688 (S.D. New York, 1973)

Johnson v. Four States Enterprises, Inc.

355 F. Supp. 1312 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 65, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 928, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyotherm-corporation-v-turbo-machine-company-ca3-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack