Pittsburgh Towing Co. v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.

Supreme Court

Pittsburgh Towing Co. v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.

385 U.S. 32, 87 S. Ct. 195, 17 L. Ed. 2d 31, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 308

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 12, 1966·No. 319·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted for failure of appellant to comply with the time requirement of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of this Court in docketing its appeal. This appeal was docketed 22 days after expiration of the 60-day period provided by the Rule. During that period, appellant made no application for an enlargement of time, either to the District Court or to a Justice of this Court (see Rule 13 (1)), nor did any explanation accompany the untimely docketing of the appeal. The jurisdictional statement itself is silent on the subject. Not until appellee moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 14 (2) did appellant comment upon its default. Its reply to the Motion to Dismiss states that the “delay was occasioned by a misunderstanding between Counsel for appellant.” It does not elaborate.

This Court has been generous in excusing errors of counsel, but if there are to be rules, there must be some limit to our willingness to overlook their violation. While we are inclined to be generous in exercising our discretion to forgive a mistake and waive the consequences [33]*33of negligence, fairness to other counsel and to parties with business before the Court as well as due regard for our own procedures leads us to believe that this case does not warrant our indulgence.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted for failure of appellant to comply with the time requirement of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of this Court in docketing its appeal. This appeal was docketed 22 days after expiration of the 60-day period provided by the Rule. During that period, appellant made no application for an enlargement of time, either to the District Court or to a Justice of this Court (see Rule 13 (1)), nor did any explanation accompany the untimely docketing of the appeal. The jurisdictional statement itself is silent on the subject. Not until appellee moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 14 (2) did appellant comment upon its default. Its reply to the Motion to Dismiss states that the “delay was occasioned by a misunderstanding between Counsel for appellant.” It does not elaborate.

This Court has been generous in excusing errors of counsel, but if there are to be rules, there must be some limit to our willingness to overlook their violation. While we are inclined to be generous in exercising our discretion to forgive a mistake and waive the consequences [33]*33of negligence, fairness to other counsel and to parties with business before the Court as well as due regard for our own procedures leads us to believe that this case does not warrant our indulgence.

Pittsburgh Towing Co. v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 385 U.S. 32, 87 S. Ct. 195, 17 L. Ed. 2d 31, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 308 (1966).

Pincite

385 U.S. 32 (Pittsburgh Towing Co. v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related