PARISSI
v.
TELECHRON, INC. 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.
A party's notice of appeal was received by the district court clerk within the required 30-day period, but the appellant failed to pay the $5 filing fee until several days later, after the deadline had expired. The Supreme Court held that timely receipt of the notice of appeal itself satisfied the statutory filing requirement, and that the subsequent delay in paying the fee did not invalidate the appeal, thus reversing the Court of Appeals' dismissal for untimeliness.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)…ption of this position is in accord with the liberal interpretation which is to be accorded procedural rules. We also note that the Federal courts follow the rule that the filing of the notice of appeal alone is jurisdictional. Parissi v. Telechron, 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955). Having modified our holding in City of Gainesville v. Thomas, supra, we find it necessary to overrule the decisions of the [*78] Second District Court in Woolley and Clark, supra, and expressly state our approval…
-
Outboard Marine Dom. Int'l Sales Corp. & Yatacha C.A. For Use & Benefit of Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Fla. Stevedoring Corp., 483 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…nal prerequisite to the timely filing of a [*824] notice of appeal. Accord Weintraub v. Alter, 482 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). That Williams controls is demonstrated conclusively by the decisions which, on the authority of Parissi v. Telechron, 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955), which is identical to and was followed in Williams, reach the same conclusion as to the complaint-commencement-of-action issue now before us. Wrenn v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 575 F. 2d 544, 547 (5th Cir.1978)…
-
Thomas v. The City OF Gainesville, 220 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…therefore, unless the filing fee was paid within the time fixed for taking appeals, the appeal would be dismissed. A long line of Oregon decisions were cited in support thereof. This case was decided in 1961. However, in Parissi v. Telechron, Inc. 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867, the United States Supreme Court held that failure to pay the filing fee to the clerk within the 30 day period for appeal, if the notice and other necessary documents had been timely filed, did not vitiate the validity of…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co., 194 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1952)