TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Judie W. McDowell v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Judie W. McDOWELL, Appellant, v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee

McDowell v. Celebrezze, 310 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 21, 1962
Docket
No. 19699
Judges
Tuttle, Brown, Johnson
Citations
310 F.2d 436 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 11321962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3544

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claimed she was entitled to a “period of disability” and certain *44 benefits which would flow therefrom. The claim has been consistently denied after administrative hearing. On August 19, 1959, appellant commenced an action in the court below to review these adverse administrative determinations. On March 24, 1960, with consent of both parties, the District Judge remanded the case to the Appeals Council for further hearing. The Appeals Council on December 29, 1960, again held that appellant had failed to establish her claims. She again sought judicial review in the District Court. On February 9,1962, the District Judge granted appellant’s motion for summary judgment and reversed the decision of the Appeals Council. Thereafter on March 9, 1962, on the Judge’s own motion, he notified all counsel in writing that “After mature judgment and re-reading the record” he was apprehensive that he had “made a mistake” in his judgment and for such reason he desired “to have a re-hearing on the case * * * on March 30, 1962 * * The hearing was held in chambers with the appellee present, but the appellant did not attend. Thereupon, on his own motion, the District Judge vacated his judgment of February 9 and entered a judgment affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

On this appeal the appellant carefully restricts it to the question whether the action of the District Judge in vacating on his own motion the earlier judgment was valid and proper.

This turns primarily on F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (1). “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, suprise, or excusable neglect; * * *. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) * * * not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. * * * Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.”

The Judge’s Notice of Rehearing fixed for March 30, 1962, fulfilled the requirement of a written motion. “The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion.” F.R.Civ.P. 7(b) (1). The Court could initiate this on its own motion. Cf. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 , applying F.R. Civ.P. 41(b); United Press Associations v. Charles, 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 21, 26 , 17 Alaska 46 , cert. denied, 354 U.S. 925 , 77 S.Ct. 1378 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1435 , applying F.R.Civ.P. 38(b); Ray v. United States, 7 Cir., 1941, 121 F.2d 416 ; United States v. Milana, E.D.Mich.1957, 148 F.Supp. 152 , applying F.R.Civ.P. 60(b). At least in a non-jury case, the action is taken “within a reasonable time” if, as here, it is done before the time for appeal has expired. Sleek v. J. C. Penney Co., 3 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 256 . Professor Moore supports these views. 7 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 60.22[3] (2nd ed. 1955). Confined as it is to the time in which appeal from the final judgment may be taken, this holding has a double virtue. First, it does not circuitously extend the time for appeal. Second, it avoids the necessity for the anomalous action suggested by Professor Moore out of an abundance of caution that a party “take an appeal within proper time and also, within appeal time, move the district court for relief; and then ask the appellate court to authorize the district court to proceed and determine the motion.” Para. 60.22 [3] at p. 238. Overburdened courts, trial and appellate, should not have to squander precious time and resources in such artificial maneuvers where the Judge on his own and in time faces up to the error and corrects it by effective action.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 9 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 90 cases

View all citing references →
1964: 21965: 21966: 31969: 21970: 21971: 31972: 41973: 11974: 11975: 11977: 41978: 21980: 21981: 31982: 21983: 41986: 21987: 21988: 11991: 11993: 11994: 11999: 22001: 12002: 12003: 12004: 12006: 42007: 12008: 52009: 12010: 22011: 42012: 12013: 32014: 32017: 12018: 12020: 22022: 32023: 12025: 32026: 319642026peak 2008 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Coldwell Banker RealNo. 07-60324 (5th Cir. May 12, 2008)
  2. Eduardo Hill and Sharon Thompson Hill, Cross v. McDermott Inc.827 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1987)
  3. Oliver v. Home Indemnity Co.470 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1972)
  4. Albert L. Pierson v. Dave Dormire484 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2007)
  5. Southern Title Research Company v. King186 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
  6. Oliver v. Monsanto Co.56 F.R.D. 370 (S.D. Tex. 1972)

Most recent

  1. ODonnell v. Harris County, TexasNo. 4:16-cv-01414 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2026)
  2. Rickey Dale Conley v. School Board of Calcasieu ParishNo. 2:80-cv-01709 (W.D. La. Aug. 27, 2026)
  3. Malak Khatabi v. Car Auto Holdings LLCNo. 24-12573 (11th Cir. May 28, 2026)
  4. Josh Anyaosah v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc.No. 24-P-821 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 24, 2025)
  5. Jonathan Brister v. Phoenicia MartinNo. 2022-CP-00931-COA (Miss. Ct. App. June 10, 2025)
  6. Askan v. Faro Technologies, Inc.No. 24-2258 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) 15,231
United Press Ass'ns, a Corp. v. Charles, 245 F.2d 21 (9th Cir. 1957) 12
Sleek v. J. C. Penney Co., 292 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. 1961) 36
United Press Ass'ns v. Charles, 354 U.S. 925 (1957) 10
Ray v. United States, 121 F.2d 416 (7th Cir. 1941) 8
United States v. Milana, 148 F. Supp. 152 (E.D. Mich. 1957) 8

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