Garfield C. Thompson and Rubye A. Hankerson v. Lawrence Johnson

D.C. Circuit

Garfield C. Thompson and Rubye A. Hankerson v. Lawrence Johnson

253 F.2d 43

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1958

Docket13698_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 253 F.2d 43 (Garfield C. Thompson and Rubye A. Hankerson v. Lawrence Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garfield C. Thompson and Rubye A. Hankerson v. Lawrence Johnson, 253 F.2d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a series of procedural steps in the District Court, Thompson and Hankerson, appellants here, on June 29, 1956, were granted an additional twenty days within which to file a more specific and definite complaint. The time for compliance having expired, the appellees on July 30, 1956, filed their timely motion to dismiss the original complaint. Some two months later, the appellants filed an amended complaint on October 1, 1956. Cutting through the maze, and after oral argument, the District Court, on October 3, 1956, granted the appel-lees’ motion to dismiss, and struck the appellants’ amended complaint because of their failure to comply with the earlier order of the court. We have been shown no error in the disposition of the case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a series of procedural steps in the District Court, Thompson and Hankerson, appellants here, on June 29, 1956, were granted an additional twenty days within which to file a more specific and definite complaint. The time for compliance having expired, the appellees on July 30, 1956, filed their timely motion to dismiss the original complaint. Some two months later, the appellants filed an amended complaint on October 1, 1956. Cutting through the maze, and after oral argument, the District Court, on October 3, 1956, granted the appel-lees’ motion to dismiss, and struck the appellants’ amended complaint because of their failure to comply with the earlier order of the court. We have been shown no error in the disposition of the case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 F.2d 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-c-thompson-and-rubye-a-hankerson-v-lawrence-johnson-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack