TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD, Appellee

United States v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 517 F.2d 881 (4th Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 5, 1975
Docket
No. 75-1130
Judges
Winter, Craven, Russell
Citations
517 F.2d 88120 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 5401975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14362

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad has moved to dismiss the appeal for failure on the part of the United States of America to comply with Rule 30, F.R. A.P., requiring the appellant to prepare and file an appendix to its brief.

The brief filed by the government purports to include an appendix, but the appendix fails to meet the minimum requirements of Rule 30(a). Although Rule 30(a) states that the appellant’s appendix “shall’

contain “(1) the relevant docket entries . . . ; (2) any relevant portions of the pleadings, charge, findings or opinion; (3) the judgment, order or decision in question; and (4) any other portions of the record to which the parties wish to direct the particular attention of the court,” the appendix to the government’s brief consists of two pages reproducing only two bills of lading. The government has neither sought nor obtained an order under Rule 30(c) which authorizes the filing of a deferred appendix, nor has it sought or obtained an order under Rule 30(f) authorizing an appeal to be heard on the original record. In its opposition to Seaboard’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the government alleges that the failure to file an appendix does not affect the’jurisdiction of this court, that the issues on review are apparent from its brief, and that it has no objection to permitting Seaboard to file an appendix.

The obligation to file an appendix is clearly that of the appellant — in this case, the government. The rule has been flagrantly violated, and we think this is an appropriate case to apply a strong sanction.

See FMC Corporation v. Knowles Electric, Inc., 438 F.2d 1220 (4 Cir. 1961).

See also Esso Standard Oil Company v. Secatore’s, Inc., 246 F.2d 17 (1 Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 834 , 78 S.Ct. 54 , 2 L.Ed.2d 46 (1957).

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1978: 21986: 11992: 12011: 119782026peak 1978 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kunen v. First Agricultural National Bank382 N.E.2d 750 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
  2. Benoit Brookens v. Dawn White795 F.2d 178 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  3. F D L Foods, Inc. v. Kokesch Trucking, Inc.599 N.E.2d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)
  4. United States v. Scott Memorial Hospi634 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2011)
  5. United States v. Kenneth B. Kush579 F.2d 394 (6th Cir. 1978)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Scott Memorial Hospi634 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2011)
  2. F D L Foods, Inc. v. Kokesch Trucking, Inc.599 N.E.2d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)
  3. Benoit Brookens v. Dawn White795 F.2d 178 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  4. Kunen v. First Agricultural National Bank382 N.E.2d 750 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
  5. United States v. Kenneth B. Kush579 F.2d 394 (6th Cir. 1978)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Secatore's, Inc., 246 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1957) 37
Fmc Corp. v. Knowles Elec., Inc., 438 F.2d 1220 (4th Cir. 1971) 3

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