The Sperry and Hutchinson Company v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California
This text of 321 F.2d 533 (The Sperry and Hutchinson Company v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California) 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.
Opinion
We hold that petitioners were entitled to the ten days notice of the hearing here in controversy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 94, sub. a(8) plus three days extra for mailing as provided by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that they are still entitled to it.
Otherwise, in our judgment, the rather abrupt commencement of the hearing is not subject to review here at this time on an application for a writ. Obviously it is not contemplated by the' bankruptcy act that petitions for fees should be desultorily handled, but even: though we must not order it, petitioners-should have had a reasonable time to get. ready.
We assume that the issuance of a writ will be unnecessary, once the district court is advised of this court’s views, and that petitioners will have had ample time to prepare their defense when proper-notice has been given them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
321 F.2d 533, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-sperry-and-hutchinson-company-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-ca9-1963.