Franklin W. Durgin, Catherine Durgin, and Orpha Durgin v. John T. Graham, M. Smith Burns, B. Clarke Nichols, and Lindsay Newspapers,inc.

372 F.2d 130, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7629
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 27, 1967
Docket23070_1
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 372 F.2d 130 (Franklin W. Durgin, Catherine Durgin, and Orpha Durgin v. John T. Graham, M. Smith Burns, B. Clarke Nichols, and Lindsay Newspapers,inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Franklin W. Durgin, Catherine Durgin, and Orpha Durgin v. John T. Graham, M. Smith Burns, B. Clarke Nichols, and Lindsay Newspapers,inc., 372 F.2d 130, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7629 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This suit for libel was instituted in the Federal District Court against the individual defendants, appellees here. Jurisdiction is pegged on diversity and the cause of action arises from a series of incidents involving the Sarasota Juvenile Court (appellees John T. Graham and M. Smith Burns, judge and chief counselor, respectively), the Assistant State Attorney (appellee B. Clarke Nichols), and the Publisher of the Sarasota Herald Tribune (appellee Lindsa ■ Newspapers, Inc.). The record reveals that despite the patience of several district court judges, appellants have declined to appear either personally or through counsel at any of the many proceedings below.

On October 23, 1963, the District Court entered an order of dismissal as to Lindsay Newspapers, Inc., having specifically found that appellants had willfully failed and refused to appear for the taking of their depositions. On June 28, 1965, an order of dismissal was entered as to the remaining defendants when appellants failed to appear or offer evidence on the scheduled trial date. This appeal followed. The sanction of dismissal is the most severe sanction that a court may apply, and its use must be tempered by a careful exercise of judicial discretion. However, where as here, appellants have not once appeared and have given no indication that they intend to do so in the future, we think it clear beyond any question that the district court was eminently correct in entering its orders of dismissal.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Turnipseed v. APMT, LLC
E.D. Louisiana, 2022
Meyer v. Anderson
D. South Carolina, 2021
United States v. $70,670.00 in U.S. Currency
929 F.3d 1293 (Eleventh Circuit, 2019)
Belva Webb v. Joseph Morella
457 F. App'x 448 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
King v. Majestic Pines Casino Food & Beverage Department
11 Am. Tribal Law 395 (Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court, 2011)
Hardin v. Comm'r
2004 T.C. Memo. 77 (U.S. Tax Court, 2004)
David Lee Smith and Mary Julia Hook v. Commissioner
2003 T.C. Memo. 266 (U.S. Tax Court, 2003)
Holden v. Simpson Paper Co
Fifth Circuit, 2002
Alexander v. Commissioner
1994 T.C. Memo. 623 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Page Family Preservation Trust B v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 223 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Urwyler v. Commissioner
1990 T.C. Memo. 188 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)
Meade v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 473 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Dean v. Ellington
115 F.R.D. 576 (N.D. Georgia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
372 F.2d 130, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-w-durgin-catherine-durgin-and-orpha-durgin-v-john-t-graham-ca5-1967.