TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Krause

UNITED STATES v. KRAUSE Et Al.

United States v. Krause, 197 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Subsequent history: rev'd sub nom. United States v. Lindsay, 346 U.S. 568 (1954). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 2, 1952
Docket
No. 13407
Judges
Mathews, Healy, Bone
Citations
197 F.2d 3291952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2622

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

In a civil action wherein appellees were plaintiffs and appellant was defendant, a judgment was entered in favor of appellees on December 6, 1951. Appellant appealed from the judgment by filing a notice of appeal on January 30, 1952.

To secure a review of the judgment, appellant was required to take further steps, including those prescribed in Rule 73(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Thus appellant was required to have a record on appeal filed with this court and the appeal docketed within the 40-day period prescribed in Rule 73(g) or a valid extension thereof. There was no extension of the 40-day period. Appellant did not have a record on appeal filed with this court or the appeal docketed within the 40-day period or at all.

Appellees have caused the appeal to be docketed and have moved to dismiss it because of appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 73(g). No valid excuse for the failure is shown. The failure does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground for such action as we deem appropriate. See Rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The action we deem appropriate is dismissal of the appeal. Cf. United States v. Gallagher, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 556 ; Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms, 9 Cir., 171 F.2d 126 ; United States v. Stanton, 9 Cir., 172 F.2d 642 .

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 21954: 21977: 119522026peak 1952 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. State of Arizona214 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1954)
  2. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.359 N.E.2d 634 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977)
  3. Fong v. James W. Glover, Limited197 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1952)
  4. United States v. Tamotsu Fujisaki198 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1952)
  5. United States v. State Of Arizona216 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.359 N.E.2d 634 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977)
  2. United States v. State of Arizona214 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1954)
  3. United States v. State Of Arizona216 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1954)
  4. United States v. Tamotsu Fujisaki198 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1952)
  5. Fong v. James W. Glover, Limited197 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1952)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Gallagher, 151 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1945) 14
Tucker Prods. Corp. v. Helms, 171 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1948) 13
United States v. Stanton, 172 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1949) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list