Four Brothers Corporation v. Rosa Maria Cordero

First Circuit

Four Brothers Corporation v. Rosa Maria Cordero

277 F.2d 777, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4722

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 1960

Docket5649_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 277 F.2d 777 (Four Brothers Corporation v. Rosa Maria Cordero) 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

Four Brothers Corporation v. Rosa Maria Cordero, 277 F.2d 777, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4722 (1st Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1293 from a decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico summarily dismissing an appeal from a judgment entered by the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, for the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident which the plaintiff-appellee has moved to dismiss under Rule 39 of this court. The value of the amount in controversy is substantially less than $5,000 and it is abundantly clear that the federal constitutional question seasonably raised below is wholly without any substance whatever and is utterly frivolous. See Romero v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 864, 867, and cases cited, and see also Figueroa v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 615, 617, 618. The trial court issued a pretrial order and notified the parties thereof requiring them to serve each other fifteen days before the date set for trial with a list containing the documentary and oral evidence they would submit at the hearing and warned them “that in default thereof, they will be unable to introduce said evidence.” The plaintiff-appellee complied with the order; the defendant-appellant, it says by inadvertence, did not. No argument is necessary to show that the defendant-appellant was not deprived of his day in court by the trial court’s insistence that its pretrial order be obeyed. At the most all that is presented is a question of local law.

An order will be entered dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1293 from a decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico summarily dismissing an appeal from a judgment entered by the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, for the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident which the plaintiff-appellee has moved to dismiss under Rule 39 of this court. The value of the amount in controversy is substantially less than $5,000 and it is abundantly clear that the federal constitutional question seasonably raised below is wholly without any substance whatever and is utterly frivolous. See Romero v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 864, 867, and cases cited, and see also Figueroa v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 615, 617, 618. The trial court issued a pretrial order and notified the parties thereof requiring them to serve each other fifteen days before the date set for trial with a list containing the documentary and oral evidence they would submit at the hearing and warned them “that in default thereof, they will be unable to introduce said evidence.” The plaintiff-appellee complied with the order; the defendant-appellant, it says by inadvertence, did not. No argument is necessary to show that the defendant-appellant was not deprived of his day in court by the trial court’s insistence that its pretrial order be obeyed. At the most all that is presented is a question of local law.

An order will be entered dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F.2d 777, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/four-brothers-corporation-v-rosa-maria-cordero-ca1-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack