From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.

U.S.
Apr 11, 1955
349 U.S. 46 (1955)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that timely receipt satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2107

Summary of this case from Houston v. Lack
See 23 Summaries

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 302.

Argued March 29, 1955. Decided April 11, 1955.

In this case, receipt by the Clerk of the District Court of a notice of appeal within the 30-day period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2107 satisfied the requirements of that section; and untimely payment of the $5 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917 did not vitiate the notice of appeal.

Reversed.

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.

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.

Summaries of

Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.

U.S.
Apr 11, 1955
349 U.S. 46 (1955)

holding that timely receipt satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2107

Summary of this case from Houston v. Lack

holding untimely payment of a filing fee did not invalidate a notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Briggs v. Rendlen (In re Reed)

holding that the late payment of a filing fee "did not vitiate the validity of petitioner's notice of appeal"

Summary of this case from Pérez v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that nonpayment of filing fees did not affect the validity of an appeal

Summary of this case from In re Schleier

holding the inadvertent failure of the appellant to include the required filing fee did not vitiate the validity of the otherwise timely filed notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Paschal v. Price

holding that appellate fees are not jurisdictional

Summary of this case from Dipoma v. McPhie

reversing dismissal of appeal as untimely where the clerk received but refused to file a notice of appeal until petitioner paid the filing fee

Summary of this case from Chrysler v. Guiney

defining "file" as "[t]o place (a document) in a due manner among the records of a court"

Summary of this case from Pierce v. Ocwen Loan Servicing

In Parissi, the Supreme Court held that a clerk's office cannot reject a notice of appeal simply because the filing fee has not been paid.

Summary of this case from Han Tak Lee v. Houtzdale Sci

filing fee not a prerequisite for proper filing of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1917

Summary of this case from Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc.

construing 28 U.S.C. § 2107

Summary of this case from Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hosp

In Parissi v. Telechron (1955), 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, held that appellant's failure to include a $5.00 filing fee along with a timely-filed notice of appeal, where 28 U.S.C. § 1917 requires that the $5.00 fee be paid `upon the filing' of a notice of appeal, did not vitiate the validity of the notice.

Summary of this case from Thorndal v. Smith, Wild, Beebe Cades

In Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46,47, (1955) (per curiam), the United States Supreme Court treated a clerk's receipt of a party's timely notice of appeal as sufficient to commence the appeal within the statutorily-prescribed limitations period even though the required filing fee had not been paid in a timely manner.

Summary of this case from Hansen v. Astrue

In Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47 (1955) (per curiam), the United States Supreme Court treated a clerk's receipt of a notice of appeal as sufficient to commence the appeal within the statutorily-prescribed period, even though the party filing the appeal had neglected to pay the required filing fee in a timely manner.

Summary of this case from Walker v. Astrue

In Parissi, an attorney "inadvertently" forgot to include the filing fee required by a federal statute to be "paid 'upon the filing' of a notice of appeal."

Summary of this case from Cornett v. Weisenburger

overruling Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 194 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1952) and any similar cases

Summary of this case from Cornett v. Weisenburger

filing fee not a prerequisite for proper filing of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1917

Summary of this case from Burnett v. Perry Mfg., Inc.

In Parissi v. Telechron (1955), 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, held that appellant's failure to include a $5.00 filing fee along with a timely-filed notice of appeal, where 28 U.S.C. § 1917 requires that the $5.00 fee be paid "upon the filing" of a notice of appeal, did not vitiate the validity of the notice.

Summary of this case from In re Steves

In Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46 (1955), the United States Supreme Court considered the effect of nonpayment of the fee required "upon the filing"of a notice of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1917.

Summary of this case from Blake v. Traster (In re Traster)

In Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955), the Court ruled that a notice of appeal was timely despite the fact that the district court clerk declined to "file" the notice which had been received within the prescribed time but without the required filing fee, which was not paid until after the time for filing the notice had expired.

Summary of this case from In re Moore

paying filing fee for notice of appeal outside the statutory time frame was not fatal to appeal which was filed within proscribed time period

Summary of this case from In re Terzian

In Parissi v. Telechron, 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955) a notice of appeal was delivered to the United States District Court Clerk prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but without the filing fee.

Summary of this case from In re Gilstrap

In Parissi, Anthony Parissi inadvertently failed to pay a $5 fee required to be paid "upon the filing" of the notice of appeal.

Summary of this case from In re Marriage of Gray
Case details for

Parissi v. Telechron, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PARISSI v . TELECHRON, INC. ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 11, 1955

Citations

349 U.S. 46 (1955)

Citing Cases

In re BFW Liquidation, LLC

The Supreme Court has held, with respect to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1917, that untimely payment of a filing fee does…

Han Tak Lee v. Houtzdale Sci

This is a non-starter. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(2), a notice of appeal is “filed by…

111 Citing Cases