UNITED STATES
v.
TAMOTSU FUJISAKI ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that failure to file a record on appeal within the prescribed time, without a valid excuse, is grounds for dismissal.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a property forfeiture judgment but failed to file the record or docket the appeal within the 40-day period. Ap…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
From a judgment in a proceeding for forfeiture of property for violation of a statute of the United States, appellant appealed to this court on January 14, 1952. Appeals in such proceedings are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. See paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore appellant could and did appeal from the judgment in this proceeding by filing a notice of appeal pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) of Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, to secure a review of the judgment, appellant was required, among other things, to comply with subdivision (g) of Rule 73; which is to say, appellant was required to file or cause to be filed with this court a record on appeal and to docket the appeal or cause it to be docketed in this court within the 40-day period specified in subdivision (g) or a valid extension thereof. There was no extension of the 40-day period. Appellant did not file or cause to be filed a record on appeal or docket the appeal or cause it to be docketed until May 26, 1952 — -35 days after the expiration of the 40-day period. Thus appellant failed to comply with subdivision (g).
Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal because of appellant’s failure to comply with subdivision (g). No valid excuse for the failure is shown. The failure does not affect the validity of the appeal, but (no remedy being provided in Rule 73) is ground for such action as we deem appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal. See subdivision (a) of Rule 73. The action we deem appropriate is dismissal of the appeal. Cf. United States v. Gallagher, 9 Cir., 151 F. 2d 556; Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms, 9 Cir., 171 F. 2d 126; United States v. Stanton, 9 Cir., 172 F. 2d 642; United States v. Krause, 9 Cir., 197 F. 2d 329; Fong v. James W. Glover, Ltd., 9 Cir., 197 F. 2d 710.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brennan v. United States Gypsum Co., 330 F.2d 728 (10th Cir. 1964)
-
United States v. Lathrop, 199 F.2d 954 (9th Cir. 1952)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Gallagher, 151 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Tucker Prods. Corp. v. Helms, 171 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1948)
- United States v. Stanton (two cases), 172 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1949)
- United States v. Krause, 197 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1952)
- Field Packing Co., Inc. v. United States, 197 F.2d 329 (6th Cir. 1952)
- Fong v. Glover, 197 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1952)