Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025SMITH v. SAMPSON M.D. Ga.
- 2023Kovac v. S.D. Reemployment Assistance Division S.D.
- 2023MIDGETT v. COOPER M.D.N.C.
- 2023Andrew Allen v. Atlas Box and Crating Co., Inc. 4th Cir.
- 2022Diede v. McDonough E.D. Wash.
- 2021Gerald Pierce v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 6th Cir.
- 2021Walter Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons 6th Cir.
- 2021Donald Phillips v. Shastine Tangilag, M.D. 6th Cir.
- 2019Fleetwood v. McMahon W.D. Tex.
- 2019Ross Briggs v. Hon. Charles E. Rendlen, III 8th Cir.
Cites 2 statutes
- District courts; fee on filing notice of or petition for appeal
- Time for appeal to court of appeals
Cites 1 case
- Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
PARISSI v. TELECHRON, INC. et al.
Attorneys
- Harry A. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Charles P. Bauer.
- Charles H. Walker argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Charles E. Nichols and Henry J. Zafian.
The judgment is reversed. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, together with his appeal bond, was received at the office of the Clerk of the District Court within the 30 days prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 2107 for filing a notice of appeal. In dispatching these papers the petitioner inadvertently failed to include the $5 fee required by 28 U. S. C. § 1917 to be paid “upon the filing” of a notice of appeal. The Clerk notified the petitioner of his omission, and declined to “file” the notice of appeal until he received the $5 fee three or four days later. By that time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. Upon petitioner’s motion the District Court made a nunc pro tunc order according the notice of appeal a filing date as of the date it was originally received by the Clerk.
The Court of Appeals, without opinion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner’s notice of appeal. Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 194 F. 2d 705 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1952), we disapprove. Our conclusion does not leave § 1917 without other sanctions.
Reversed.