Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Tudisca v. Leary, 98 F.3d 1333, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vincent Tudisca appealed a district court's denial of his request to reopen the time for appealing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision in a 3-paragraph opinion. The appellate court found that neither the mistake of sending notice of the decision to Tudisca's old address nor a clerk's failure to fully inform him of the rules for invoking an extension of the appeal deadline were sufficient to excuse his late appeal. The court noted the responsibility of litigants to monitor their cases and that the unique circumstances exception is limited to situations where a judicial officer provides assurances, not a clerk. The court then affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Tudisca v. Leary, 98 F.3d 1333, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views1 page
    Vincent Tudisca appealed a district court's denial of his request to reopen the time for appealing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision in a 3-paragraph opinion. The appellate court found that neither the mistake of sending notice of the decision to Tudisca's old address nor a clerk's failure to fully inform him of the rules for invoking an extension of the appeal deadline were sufficient to excuse his late appeal. The court noted the responsibility of litigants to monitor their cases and that the unique circumstances exception is limited to situations where a judicial officer provides assurances, not a clerk. The court then affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-10-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 98 F.3d 1333 Docket: 96-1576

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Vincent Tudisca appealed a district court's denial of his request to reopen the time for appealing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision in a 3-paragraph opinion. The appellate court found that neither the mistake of sending notice of the decision to Tudisca's old address nor a clerk's failure to fully inform him of the rules for invoking an extension of the appeal deadline were sufficient to excuse his late appeal. The court noted the responsibility of litigants to monitor their cases and that the unique circumstances exception is limited to situations where a judicial officer provides assurances, not a clerk. The court then affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    14 views1 page

    Tudisca v. Leary, 98 F.3d 1333, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vincent Tudisca appealed a district court's denial of his request to reopen the time for appealing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision in a 3-paragraph opinion. The appellate court found that neither the mistake of sending notice of the decision to Tudisca's old address nor a clerk's failure to fully inform him of the rules for invoking an extension of the appeal deadline were sufficient to excuse his late appeal. The court noted the responsibility of litigants to monitor their cases and that the unique circumstances exception is limited to situations where a judicial officer provides assurances, not a clerk. The court then affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    98 F.

    3d 1333

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    Vincent A. TUDISCA, II, Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    James Dennis LEARY, etc., et al., Defendants, Appellees.
    No. 96-1576.

    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.


    Oct. 16, 1996.

    Vincent A. Tudisca, II on brief pro se.


    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Gail M. McKenna, Assistant
    Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
    Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, BOUDIN and LYNCH, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    We affirm the district court's March 14, 1996 order denying appellant's request
    to reopen the time for appealing. Neither the mistake in sending notice to
    appellant's old address nor the failure of a clerk's office employee fully to
    inform appellant how to invoke Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6) and the time limits for
    doing so is sufficient to excuse appellant's late appeal. See, e.g., Hensley v.
    Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 229-31 (4th Cir.1981) (noting
    litigant's responsibility to monitor the progress of his action); United States v.
    Heller, 957 F.2d 26, 29-31 (1st Cir.1992) (limiting the unique circumstances
    doctrine to situations where a judicial officer--and not a clerk's office employee-assures a party that he has time to appeal).

    Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.

    You might also like