Garfield C. Thompson and Rubye A. Hankerson v. Lawrence Johnson
Garfield C. THOMPSON and Rubye A. Hankerson, Appellants, v. Lawrence JOHNSON Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
After a series of procedural steps in the District Court, Thompson and Hankerson, appellants here, on June 29, 1956, were granted an additional twenty days within which to file a more specific and definite complaint. The time for compliance having expired, the appellees on July 30, 1956, filed their timely motion to dismiss the original complaint. Some two months later, the appellants filed an amended complaint on October 1, 1956. Cutting through the maze, and after oral argument, the District Court, on October 3, 1956, granted the appel-lees’ motion to dismiss, and struck the appellants’ amended complaint because of their failure to comply with the earlier order of the court. We have been shown no error in the disposition of the case.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Shallal v. Gates
- Page v. Mandel
- Bernstein v. Positive Directions Unlimited, Inc. (In re Positive Directions Unlimited, Inc.)
- Industrial Building Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp.
- R. W. Agnew v. Richard W. Moody
- James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., James P
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.