WILLIAM CARL CUNNINGHAM ET UX., AND GLENN A. PRICE ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1961-10-17
No. 17049
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLIN and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.
295 F.2d 535 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1961)

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the dismissal and denial of the motion to vacate, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs' cases were dismissed for failure to appear at trial. The trial court denied their motion to vacate the dismissal.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The order of dismissal and the order denying motion to vacate the dismissal are affirmed.

We have here a situation where the Court in its discretion might have granted the motion to vacate. But it did not. And, we cannot say it was an abuse of discretion not to do so. The trial court was entitled to regard the affidavits of the parties plaintiff as implausible, or as not actually reaching the crucial point of why the plaintiffs did not show up at the time appointed for the trial of their cases when the cases were dismissed.

The appellants have sought to strike certain matter dehors the official record which the appellee imported into its brief. We do not grant the motion to strike simply because we have ignored improper statements and the improperly incorporated “unofficial” exhibit contained in the brief.

Counsel on both sides owe the public, their profession and themselves something better than their briefs filed here. Appellants cut the first wound with an attack on the trial judge. Appellee does not meet the charge with decorum, but instead uses the appellants’ transgressions as license to chink up the record with matter outside the official record. Of this, we disapprove.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw