Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms

Ninth Circuit

Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms

171 F.2d 126, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1948

DocketNo. 12125

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 171 F.2d 126 (Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms) 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.

Bluebook

Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms, 171 F.2d 126, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789 (9th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants and appellees move to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the time to file the transcript of record in the district court for docketing the appeal expired on November 10, 1948, ninety days after the filing of the notice of appeal, and the transcript and required filing fee were not tendered the clerk of this court until December 1, 1948.

We agree that the appeal should be dismissed. The contention of plaintiff and appellant is that its attorneys, officers of this court, may engage in other litigation and that this “preoccupation in other matters” relieves them of the preparation and presentation of an affidavit and motion for the extension of time provided in our Rule 13¹ to be made prior to the expiration of the time fixed by the district court under Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

We do not regard such preoccupation in other litigation as a reasonable ground for neglect of the duties of officers of this court. Maghan v. Young, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 154 F.2d 13.

The motion for order extending time within which to docket record on appeal is denied.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants and appellees move to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the time to file the transcript of record in the district court for docketing the appeal expired on November 10, 1948, ninety days after the filing of the notice of appeal, and the transcript and required filing fee were not tendered the clerk of this court until December 1, 1948.

We agree that the appeal should be dismissed. The contention of plaintiff and appellant is that its attorneys, officers of this court, may engage in other litigation and that this “preoccupation in other matters” relieves them of the preparation and presentation of an affidavit and motion for the extension of time provided in our Rule 13¹ to be made prior to the expiration of the time fixed by the district court under Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

We do not regard such preoccupation in other litigation as a reasonable ground for neglect of the duties of officers of this court. Maghan v. Young, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 154 F.2d 13.

The motion for order extending time within which to docket record on appeal is denied.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F.2d 126, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-products-corp-v-helms-ca9-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack