Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corporation

699 F.2d 1366, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 8, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13577
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided February 17, 1983·No. Appeal 83-611·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a request by Harry T. Whitehouse, the president of appellee, Sunspool Corporation, to represent his corporation, which is the appellee in this patent case. Mr. White-house apparently is not a lawyer. He seeks to represent his corporation because “[t]he continuing accrual of professional fees ... has imposed a substantial financial hardship upon the Appellee.”

Rule 7(a) of the Rules of this court provides that “[ejxcept for an individual appearing pro se, each party and amicus curiae must appear through an attorney who is authorized to practice before this court.” Nothing in our Rules suggests that an exception is to be made because of the expense a corporation will incur by appearing through an attorney.

Both of our predecessor courts have held that only a lawyer, and not a corporate officer or stockholder, may appear for the corporation in litigation before the court. Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 458 F.2d 1373, 1375 (Ct.Cl.1972); Whited Co. v. United States, No. 464-81C (Ct.Cl. Nov. 20, 1981) (order requiring plaintiff corporation to be represented by counsel); Contemporary Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 503-80C (Ct.Cl. Nov. 20,1981) (order granting in part motion for summary judgment); Roger & Gallet v. Janmarie, 245 F.2d 505, 508 (CCPA 1957). This is the general rule. See Southwest Express Co., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 670 F.2d 53 (5 Cir. 1982).

The request of Harry T. Whitehouse to appear in this case for the appellee, Sun-spool Corporation, is denied.

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

Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corporation, 699 F.2d 1366, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 8, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13577 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

699 F.2d 1366 (Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barry v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
Howell v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 775 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Diaz v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 664 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Lea v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 203 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Woodruff v. United States
122 Fed. Cl. 761 (Federal Claims, 2015)
Alli v. United States
93 Fed. Cl. 172 (Federal Claims, 2010)
Archay Financial Corp. v. General Motors Corp.
125 F. App'x 1003 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Mineral Hill Venture v. Norton
31 F. App'x 675 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Page v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 521 (Federal Claims, 2001)
Talasila, Inc., and M.R. Mikkilineni v. United States
240 F.3d 1064 (Federal Circuit, 2001)
U.S. PolyCon Corp. v. United States
43 Fed. Cl. 11 (Federal Claims, 1999)
Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.
642 A.2d 62 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1994)
Solomon v. Monongalia County Bar Ass'n
914 F.2d 249 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
In Re Cattle King, Inc
873 F.2d 1450 (Federal Circuit, 1989)