TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ruthe Graddy v. Honorable Dudley B. Bonsal, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Ruthe GRADDY, Appellant, v. Honorable Dudley B. BONSAL, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Ruthe Graddy v. Bonsal, 375 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 12, 1967
Docket
No. 31170_1
Judges
Lumbard, Smith, Feinberg
Citations
375 F.2d 7641967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6764

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed by Judge Bonsai in the Southern District of New York for lack of federal jurisdiction on November 29, 1966. Motions for rehearing filed December 2 and 5, 1966 were denied by Judge Bonsai on January 5, 1967. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on February 23, 1967. Although the running of the thirty days allowed for filing a notice of appeal was terminated by the filing of the motions for rehearing, regarded as motions “to alter or amend the judgment” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), Vine v. Beneficial Fin. Co., Inc., 374 F.2d 627 (2 Cir. March 13, 1967); Gainey v. Brotherhood of Ry. & S.S. Clerks, 303 F.2d 716 (3 Cir. 1962); 7 Moore, Federal Practice par. 73.09 [4], at 3185 (2 ed. 1966), more than thirty days elapsed between the denial of the motions on January 5 and the filing of the notice of appeal on February 23. This appeal must therefore be dismissed because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.

If the merits of the appeal were before us, we would affirm, because the absence of federal jurisdiction is clear. Plaintiff has not alleged any diversity of citizenship between herself and any of the defendants. She contends upon appeal that her complaint is based on “violations against the SEC,” but the allegations of her complaint, however broadly read, do not charge any violations of the federal securities laws.

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1970: 21975: 21985: 12022: 819702026peak 2022 · 8

Most recent

  1. Glover v. HPC - EightNo. 3:20-cv-01535 (D. Conn. Apr. 4, 2022)
  2. Johnson v. Vera House, Inc.No. 3:22-cv-00314 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2022)
  3. Johnson v. McMahonNo. 3:22-cv-00230 (D. Conn. Feb. 17, 2022)
  4. Johnson v. RusinNo. 3:22-cv-00146 (D. Conn. Feb. 17, 2022)
  5. Johnson v. ChumskyNo. 3:22-cv-00145 (D. Conn. Feb. 17, 2022)
  6. Johnson v. Utica National Insurance GroupNo. 3:22-cv-00124 (D. Conn. Feb. 17, 2022)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Vine v. Beneficial Fin. Co., 374 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1967) 305

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