Gould v. Members of New Jersey Division of Water Policy and Supply, 76-2068
| Decision Date | 23 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2068,76-2068 |
| Citation | 555 F.2d 340 |
| Parties | Jasper C. GOULD, Appellant, v. The MEMBERS OF the NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF WATER POLICY AND SUPPLY, Lilyan Schwartz, I. Ralph Fox, the Commissioner of the Division of Water Policy and Supply, Robert A. Roe, Robert Hardman, the Commonwealth Water Company, Harold Burd, American Water Works Service Company. . Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Mark L. Amsterdam, Rubin, Hanley & Amsterdam, New York City, Martin L. Bush, Florham Park, N. J., for appellant.
David G. Eynon, Farrell, Eynon, Madden & Lundgren, E. Haddonfield, N. J., for appellee Com. Water Co., et al.
William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen. of N. J., Stuart R. Meislik, Erminie Conley, Deputy Attys. Gen., Trenton, N. J., for State appellees.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Feb. 23, 1977.
This Court, on its own motion, raised a question as to the timeliness of the notice of appeal filed with the district court for the District of New Jersey.
Appellant asserts in his supplemental brief and appellees do not deny that the notice of appeal was received by the district court Clerk's office within the required 30 days. However it was not accompanied by the required $5.00 filing fee. Consequently, the Clerk did not file it and so advised appellant. The $5.00 payment was not made until after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period and the notice was presumably filed as of the date of payment.
The issue presented is whether a notice of appeal received by the district court Clerk's office within the required period of time and not accompanied by the mandated filing fee is untimely for appellate review purposes.
In United States v. Solly, 545 F.2d 874, 876 (3d Cir. 1976), we held "that whenever a notice of appeal is filed in a district court, it is filed as of the time it is actually received in the clerk's office even though it is designated as filed by the clerk's office at a later date." We were, of course, talking about its timeliness for appeal purposes. We think this result is mandated by Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955), in which the court said: "We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that (any) untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner's notice of appeal." Although in Parissi the court of appeals had required a nunc pro tunc order to validate the notice for appeal purposes, we think that in its opinion, the Supreme Court dispensed with the need for any such procedure.
It is thus clear that the filing fee requirement cannot operate to render untimely a notice of appeal that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyes v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, DENVER, COLO.
... ... ), Denver, Colorado, and individual board members of that school district. As part of our ruling on ... (13) Public Policy ... Obviously, some categories ... ...
-
Wisniewski v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor
...filing fee beyond thirty-day period for filing notice of appeal does not render appeal untimely); Gould v. Members of New Jersey Division of Water Policy and Supply, 555 F.2d 340 (3d Cir.1977) (citing Parissi ) (untimely payment of the filing fee does not vitiate the validity of notice of a......
-
Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity
...operate to render untimely a notice of appeal that is timely received in the Clerk's office." Gould v. Members of the N.J. Div. of Water Policy & Supply, 555 F.2d 340, 341 (3d Cir.1977); accord Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47, 75 S.Ct. 577, 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955) (per curiam).......
-
Lynch v. Rivera (In re Rivera)
...of an otherwise timely filed complaint or notice of appeal. McDowell, 88 F.3d at 191 (citing Gould v. Members of New Jersey Div. of Water Policy & Supply , 555 F.2d 340, 341 (3d Cir.1977) ). Although courts have discretion to dismiss matters for failure to timely pay the filing fee, they ar......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 3 Appeal As of Right-How Taken
...a jurisdictional defect. See Parissi v. Telechron, 349 U.S. 46 (1955); Gould v. Members of N. J. Division of Water Policy & Supply, 555 F.2d 340 (3d Cir. 1977). Similarly, under present Rule 12, failure to pay the docket fee within the time prescribed may be excused by the court of appeals.......