Hutter v. Korzen, No. 71-1419
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS |
| Citation | 34 L.Ed.2d 166,409 U.S. 905,93 S.Ct. 216 |
| Parties | John A. HUTTER et ux. v. Bernard J. KORZEN, etc |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1419 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1972 |
v.
Bernard J. KORZEN, etc.
Supreme Court of the United States
See 409 U.S. 1049, 93 S.Ct. 509.
The motion for leave to supplement the jurisdictional statement in No. 71-1408 is granted. The appeals are dismissed for failure to docket the cases within the time prescribed by Rule 13(1) of the Rules of this Court.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
These cases, here on appeal, are dismissed by the Court, as being out of time under our Rules. I dissent from that disposition.
We held in United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 84-86, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754, that the Rules of this Court determine the effect of untimely docketing. Only the filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Docketing is prescribed by Rule 13(1), and this Court in case after case has in its discretion waived the strictures of that rule. Up to now it has, indeed, been more concerned with disposing of cases as justice may require rather than finding technical ways to avoid decision of knotty questions.
In the Aero Mayflower Transit Co. case the three-judge court entered its judgment on December 29, 1972, and Aero Mayflower filed its notice of appeal on February 14, 1972, within the 60-day period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2101(a) but did not docket its case within the subsequent 60-day period. Instead, it filed its jurisdictional statement on April 28, 1972, 14 days out of time.
In the Hutter case the notice of appeal was filed on February 17, 1972, following denial by the Illinois Supreme Court of Hutter's motion to reconsider on January 18, 1972. This was timely under § 2101(c). Dock-
Page 906
eting on May 1, 1972, however, did not occur within the period provided by Rule 13(1), but was 14 days late.
The delay in each of these appeals was much shorter than that which occurred in Johnson v. Florida, 391 U.S. 596, 88 S.Ct. 1713, 20 L.Ed.2d 838, where we entertained an appeal that was not docketed until 56 days after the time provided in Rule 13(1) expired. 391 U.S., at 598 n., 88 S.Ct., at 1714.
In Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481, 91 S.Ct. 858, 28 L.Ed.2d 200 (1971), the Court considered a petition for certiorari in which the opinion of the Court of Appeals was filed on November 12, 1969, rehearing was denied on March 5, 1970, and the petition was filed on September 26, 1970. Under Rule 22(2) that applied in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
76 Hawai'i 494, Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), No. 16492
...Haw. 353, 355, 493 P.2d 1032, 1033, cert. denied, 408 U.S. 930, 92 S.Ct. 2493, 33 L.Ed.2d 342 reh'g denied, 409 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 107, 34 L.Ed.2d 166 (1972) (per curiam); Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532, 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968) (citations Article I, § 13 of the Hawai'i Constitution, as ......
-
Story v. Roberts, No. 72-641-Civ-J.
...347 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.Fla.1971) aff'd mem., 407 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 2462, 32 L.Ed.2d 803 (1972) reh. denied, 409 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 107, 34 L.Ed.2d 166 (1972). See McDonald v. The Department of Public Welfare of the State of Florida, 430 F.2d 1268 (5th The three-judge district court in Zarat......
-
Waechter v. Amoco Production Co., No. 47474
...310, 463 F.2d 256 (1972), cert. den. 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2409, 2410, 2413, 32 L.Ed.2d 676, reh. den. 409 U.S. 902, 93 S.Ct. 103, 34 L.Ed.2d 166; and see findings No. 53, 54, 55 and 56 in the court's opinion. In Mobil, the commission took the position that when a landowner executed a " 'p......
-
Porter v. Hu, No. 26438.
...Haw. 353, 355, 493 P.2d 1032, 1034, cert. denied, 408 U.S. 930, 92 S.Ct. 2493, 33 L.Ed.2d 342, reh'g denied, 409 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 107, 34 L.Ed.2d 166 The dispositive question, therefore, is whether a cause of action for unjust enrichment is a "suit at common law" under the Hawai`i Constit......
-
76 Hawai'i 494, Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), No. 16492
...Haw. 353, 355, 493 P.2d 1032, 1033, cert. denied, 408 U.S. 930, 92 S.Ct. 2493, 33 L.Ed.2d 342 reh'g denied, 409 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 107, 34 L.Ed.2d 166 (1972) (per curiam); Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532, 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968) (citations Article I, § 13 of the Hawai'i Constitution, as ......
-
Story v. Roberts, No. 72-641-Civ-J.
...347 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.Fla.1971) aff'd mem., 407 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 2462, 32 L.Ed.2d 803 (1972) reh. denied, 409 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 107, 34 L.Ed.2d 166 (1972). See McDonald v. The Department of Public Welfare of the State of Florida, 430 F.2d 1268 (5th The three-judge district court in Zarat......
-
Waechter v. Amoco Production Co., No. 47474
...310, 463 F.2d 256 (1972), cert. den. 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2409, 2410, 2413, 32 L.Ed.2d 676, reh. den. 409 U.S. 902, 93 S.Ct. 103, 34 L.Ed.2d 166; and see findings No. 53, 54, 55 and 56 in the court's opinion. In Mobil, the commission took the position that when a landowner executed a " 'p......
-
Porter v. Hu, No. 26438.
...Haw. 353, 355, 493 P.2d 1032, 1034, cert. denied, 408 U.S. 930, 92 S.Ct. 2493, 33 L.Ed.2d 342, reh'g denied, 409 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 107, 34 L.Ed.2d 166 The dispositive question, therefore, is whether a cause of action for unjust enrichment is a "suit at common law" under the Hawai`i Constit......