TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert Monzo, Jr. v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

Robert MONZO, Jr., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

Monzo v. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., 735 F.2d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 6, 1984
Docket
No. 84-741
Judges
Bennett, Miller, Smith
Citations
735 F.2d 13351984 U.S. App. LEXIS 15188

Opinion — Bennett

ORDER BENNETT, Circuit Judge.

Respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1) (1982). The statute provides in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed within 30 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.

The MSPB order denying petitioner’s request for review was received by him on October 11, 1983, and by his attorney on October 14, 1983. The petition for review by this Court was received by the Clerk on November 14, 1983. Under the statute, the date of receipt by petitioner’s counsel is irrelevant where petitioner himself actually received notice. Receipt of notice by petitioner on October 11 triggered the statute of limitations and his appeal is late on its face. The 30-day period for appeal is statutory, mandatory, jurisdictional, and bars the claim here.

Ramos v. United States, 683 F.2d 396 (Ct.Cl.1982). Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows three extra days after “service of a paper” by mail, is not relevant to this case where the statute speaks of notice. Cf .

FED.R.APP.P. 25(a).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 12 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 179 cases

View all citing references →
1985: 11987: 31988: 41989: 41990: 11991: 61992: 11993: 61994: 61995: 41996: 41998: 12001: 22002: 22003: 82004: 112005: 142006: 142007: 32008: 62009: 112010: 72011: 62012: 42013: 132014: 202015: 12016: 22017: 72018: 52025: 219852026peak 2014 · 20

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robert K. Oja v. Department of the Army405 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
  2. Fedora v. Merit Systems Protection Board848 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) · Dissent
  3. Oja v. Dept. Of the ArmyNo. 2004-3030 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2005)
  4. Jones v. Department of Health & Human Services834 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
  5. Harris v. United States13 Cl. Ct. 363 (Ct. Cl. 1987)
  6. Jones v. Secretary of Health & Human Services78 Fed. Cl. 403 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

Most recent

  1. Rainsford v. SSA CommissionerNo. 3:24-cv-01862 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2025)
  2. Jimenez v. DuffyNo. 2:24-cv-02158 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2025)
  3. Allen v. MSPBNo. 18-1649 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 11, 2018)
  4. Federal Education Association v. DefenseNo. 15-3173 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)
  5. Fed. Educ. Ass'n Stateside Region v. Dep't of Def.909 F.3d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
  6. Federal Education Association v. DefenseNo. 15-3173 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2018)

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
Ramos v. United States, 683 F.2d 396 (Ct. Cl. 1982) 12

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