STONEKING

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Williams v. Collins, 728 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1984)
  …ntly overturned its own precedent applying the 30-day time limit in a case involving a government officer sued in his individual capacity for possibly government-related activity. See Michaels v. Chappell, 279 F. 2d 600 (9th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 940, 81 S.Ct. 1663, 6 L.Ed.2d 851 (1961). We are per [*724] suaded of the wisdom of the Ninth Circuit’s reading of the rule. Whenever the alleged grievance arises out of a government activity, the 60-day filing period of Rule 4(a) applies if: (a) the…
• NeSMITH v. Fulton, 615 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …he United States). Nor did a suit by NeSmith involve the United States as a real party in interest requiring various government officials to review the decision to appeal. See Michaels v. Chappell, 279 F. 2d 600, 602 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 940, 81 S.Ct. 1663, 6 L.Ed.2d 851 (1961) (person not “official or agency” of United States for purposes of 60-day time limit on filing appeal when suit by or against him does not involve interests of the United States that require different echelons of…
• Wallace v. Commander George C. Chappell, 637 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …lained of were nonreviewable military decisions, that defendants were entitled to intra-service immunity, and that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. In Michaels v. Chappell, 279 F. 2d 600 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 940, 81 S.Ct. 1663, 6 L.Ed.2d 851 (1961), we held in effect that a party could not take inconsistent positions. We said that a plaintiff who contended (in order to avoid a defense of immunity) that the government agent was acting as a private citizen, c…

  ← 1 / 2 →