Pearl Jurin v. Wiltshire Parkway, Inc., the Lenkin Realty Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Pearl Jurin v. Wiltshire Parkway, Inc., the Lenkin Realty Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation

238 F.2d 263, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 187, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4020

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1956

Docket13147_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 F.2d 263 (Pearl Jurin v. Wiltshire Parkway, Inc., the Lenkin Realty Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation) 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

Pearl Jurin v. Wiltshire Parkway, Inc., the Lenkin Realty Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 238 F.2d 263, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 187, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4020 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint May 5, 1954. Fifteen months later, on August 9, 1955, plaintiff’s counsel filed an affidavit in which he said that on or about April 30, 1954, “the Court indicated orally from the bench that the case should be dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against any of the parties defendant. Thereafter, on May 5, 1954 there was signed by the Court an Order dismissing said action. I never received any notification from the Clerk of the Court that the Order was signed on that date.” Counsel does not say he did not become aware of the order at approximately the time it was entered. September 8, 1955, 16 months after the order was entered, counsel filed a “Motion for Relief from an Order Dismissing Cause”. The District Court denied the motion. This appeal is from that denial.

The court was clearly right. In substance though not in terms appellant is claiming that her counsel's neglect to make timely attack, by appeal or otherwise, upon the order of May 5, 1954, was excusable. But (1) no excuse is shown; (2) Rule 60(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., requires motions for relief from a judgment or order because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” to be made within one year; and (3) Rule 60(b) requires all motions for relief from a judgment or order to be made within “a reasonable time”.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint May 5, 1954. Fifteen months later, on August 9, 1955, plaintiff’s counsel filed an affidavit in which he said that on or about April 30, 1954, “the Court indicated orally from the bench that the case should be dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against any of the parties defendant. Thereafter, on May 5, 1954 there was signed by the Court an Order dismissing said action. I never received any notification from the Clerk of the Court that the Order was signed on that date.” Counsel does not say he did not become aware of the order at approximately the time it was entered. September 8, 1955, 16 months after the order was entered, counsel filed a “Motion for Relief from an Order Dismissing Cause”. The District Court denied the motion. This appeal is from that denial.

The court was clearly right. In substance though not in terms appellant is claiming that her counsel's neglect to make timely attack, by appeal or otherwise, upon the order of May 5, 1954, was excusable. But (1) no excuse is shown; (2) Rule 60(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., requires motions for relief from a judgment or order because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” to be made within one year; and (3) Rule 60(b) requires all motions for relief from a judgment or order to be made within “a reasonable time”.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F.2d 263, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 187, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearl-jurin-v-wiltshire-parkway-inc-the-lenkin-realty-company-and-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack