Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.

349 U.S. 46, 75 S. Ct. 577, 99 L. Ed. 2d 867, 99 L. Ed. 867, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 943
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 11, 1955
Docket302
StatusPublished
Cited by119 cases

This text of 349 U.S. 46 (Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S. Ct. 577, 99 L. Ed. 2d 867, 99 L. Ed. 867, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 943 (1955).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, together with his appeal bond, was received at the office of the Clerk of the District Court within the 30 days prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 2107 for filing a notice of appeal. In dispatching these papers the petitioner inadvertently failed to include the $5 fee required by 28 U. S. C. § 1917 to be paid “upon the filing” of a notice of appeal. The Clerk notified the petitioner of his omission, and declined to “file” the notice of appeal until he received the $5 fee three or four days later. By that time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. Upon petitioner’s motion the District Court made a nunc pro tunc order according the notice of appeal a filing date as of the date it was originally received by the Clerk.

*47 The Court of Appeals, without opinion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner’s notice of appeal. Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 194 F. 2d 705 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1952), we disapprove. Our conclusion does not leave § 1917 without other sanctions.

Reversed.

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

Related

SMITH v. SAMPSON
M.D. Georgia, 2025
Kovac v. S.D. Reemployment Assistance Division
995 N.W.2d 247 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2023)
Andrew Allen v. Atlas Box and Crating Co., Inc.
59 F.4th 145 (Fourth Circuit, 2023)
Diede v. McDonough
E.D. Washington, 2022
Donald Phillips v. Shastine Tangilag, M.D.
14 F.4th 524 (Sixth Circuit, 2021)
Walter Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
5 F.4th 653 (Sixth Circuit, 2021)
Ross Briggs v. Hon. Charles E. Rendlen, III
943 F.3d 849 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)
Morrison v. Duke
District of Columbia, 2018
Morrison v. Nielsen
325 F. Supp. 3d 62 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Han Lee v. Superintendent Houtzdale SCI
798 F.3d 159 (Third Circuit, 2015)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Klemm v. Commissioner Ss
Ninth Circuit, 2008
Dubuc v. Johnson
314 F.3d 1205 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
In Re JW
763 A.2d 1129 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2000)
Wells v. Apfel
103 F. Supp. 2d 893 (W.D. Virginia, 2000)
Bridgeforth v. Ward
162 F.3d 1172 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Kirkley v. Emory (In Re Emory)
219 B.R. 703 (D. South Carolina, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 U.S. 46, 75 S. Ct. 577, 99 L. Ed. 2d 867, 99 L. Ed. 867, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parissi-v-telechron-inc-scotus-1955.