Deena Products Co. v. United Brick & Clay Workers of America
DEENA PRODUCTS CO. v. UNITED BRICK & CLAY WORKERS OF AMERICA Et Al.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard upon the record and upon the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for appellant and ap-pellees, respectively, and upon the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal;
From all of which it appears that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, for the reason that the appellant company failed to file a notice of appeal in the United States District Court within the time prescribed by law and by the Rules of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as more than thirty days had elapsed after the motion of appellant for a new trial had been overruled by the District Court before the appellant’s motion for a new trial was reinstated and again overruled, the District Judge having stated that his purpose in setting aside the original order overruling the motion for a new trial was to enable the plaintiff to prosecute an appeal;
And it being the view of this court that, -both under Civil Procedure Rule 73 (a), 28 U.S.C.A., and section 2107 of Title 28 U.S.C., as amended by Act of Congress of May 24, 1949, the filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional and cannot be ex *613 tended by waiver or order of court, and the right to appeal is lost if notice of appeal is not filed within the time prescribed. (See Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834 );
And it being the further view of the court that any damages suffered by the appellant, by reason of the acts complained of, are, regardless of the liability or non-liability of the appellees to it under the provisions of the statute, section 303(a) (1) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, section 187(a) (1), Title 29, U.S.C.A., contingent and entirely dependent upon certain contractual relations with its subsidiary, Deena Artware, Inc., which contractual relations did not exist, and accordingly are not recoverable in this action ;
The motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal filed October 15, 1951, is granted; and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 24 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- William Kelly v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
- Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company v. David Kallen, Sondra Litwin and American Policyholders Insurance Company, Sondra Litwin, Cross v. David Kallen, American Policyholders Insurance Company, Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange and Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company, Cross
- Andrew Terrasi v. South Atlantic Lines, Inc
- United Mine Workers of America v. Osborne Mining Co.
- Yee Marn v. Reynolds
- National Labor Relations Board v. Ferraro's Bakery, Inc.
Most recent
- Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company v. David Kallen, Sondra Litwin and American Policyholders Insurance Company, Sondra Litwin, Cross v. David Kallen, American Policyholders Insurance Company, Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange and Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company, Cross
- Richland Knox Mutual Insurance v. Kallen
- Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill
- Kittery Electric Light Co. v. Assessors of Kittery
- National Labor Relations Board v. Ferraro's Bakery, Inc.
- Eugene Ross Dockery and L. W. Bulman, D/B/A B & D Antique Shop v. The Travelers Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Eugene Ross Dockery and L
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.