Jerry Lee Birdsong and Dennis Birdsong, by and Through Their Guardian Ad Litem, Ora Mae Birdsong, and Ora Mae Birdsong v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Jerry Lee Birdsong and Dennis Birdsong, by and Through Their Guardian Ad Litem, Ora Mae Birdsong, and Ora Mae Birdsong v. United States

262 F.2d 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 1958

Docket16110_1

StatusPublished

This text of 262 F.2d 105 (Jerry Lee Birdsong and Dennis Birdsong, by and Through Their Guardian Ad Litem, Ora Mae Birdsong, and Ora Mae Birdsong v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jerry Lee Birdsong and Dennis Birdsong, by and Through Their Guardian Ad Litem, Ora Mae Birdsong, and Ora Mae Birdsong v. United States, 262 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the above action pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, West’s Ann.Code, for lack of prosecution. The Rule provides that the court may dismiss an action pending in which no steps have been taken for six months. It is undisputed that inaction by the plaintiffs extended over the prescribed period. The record discloses that the trial court carefully considered the affidavit of appellants setting forth the excuse for such inaction. The trial court concluded that good cause for lack of prosecution had not been established. The matter was again carefully considered by the trial court on the hearing on a motion by appellants to vacate and set aside the order previously made.

We are unable to find any abuse by the trial court of the discretion vested in it. The order of the trial court is affirmed. Boling v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1940, 231 F.2d 926; Boudreau v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 209.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the above action pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, West’s Ann.Code, for lack of prosecution. The Rule provides that the court may dismiss an action pending in which no steps have been taken for six months. It is undisputed that inaction by the plaintiffs extended over the prescribed period. The record discloses that the trial court carefully considered the affidavit of appellants setting forth the excuse for such inaction. The trial court concluded that good cause for lack of prosecution had not been established. The matter was again carefully considered by the trial court on the hearing on a motion by appellants to vacate and set aside the order previously made.

We are unable to find any abuse by the trial court of the discretion vested in it. The order of the trial court is affirmed. Boling v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1940, 231 F.2d 926; Boudreau v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 209.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerry-lee-birdsong-and-dennis-birdsong-by-and-through-their-guardian-ad-ca9-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack