Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley

19 Citing cases

  1. McSparran v. Hanigan

    225 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Pa. 1963)   Cited 46 times
    In McSparran v. Hanigan, [225 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Pa. 1963) (Freedman, J.),] plaintiff admitted that "the premises on which said accident occurred, were occupied or under the control" of one of the defendants, 225 F. Supp. at 636.

    4 Moore, Federal Practice (Supp. 1963) ¶ 36.08; cf. 2A Barron Holtzoff, Federal Practice Procedure (1961), § 838. See Ark-Tenn Distributing Corp. v. Breidt, 209 F.2d 359, 360 (2d Cir. 1954); Dorsey v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 197 F.2d 468, 472 (7th Cir. 1952); United States v. Lemons, 125 F. Supp. 686, 688 (W.D.Ark. 1954); Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, 13 F.R.D. 113, 119 (W.D.Ark. 1952); Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas Elec. Co., 92 F. Supp. 118, 123 (S.D.Iowa 1950); Beasley v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 518, 528 (E.D.S.C. 1948). See Finman, The Request for Admissions in Federal Civil Procedure, 71 Yale L.J. 371, 421-22 (1962).

  2. Hartley Parker, Inc. v. Florida Bev. Corp.

    348 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 17 times
    In Hartley Parker, Inc v Flordia Beverage Corp, 348 F.2d 161 (CA 5, 1965), the defendant failed to verify answers to requests for admissions as required by FRCP 36. Nonetheless, the requests for admissions and their answers were offered by plaintiff at trial and were admitted into evidence.

    Plaintiff relies on a group of authorities where the sanction was imposed of treating the requests as admitted in situations where there was no sworn denial. See Beasley v. United States, E.D.S.C., 1948, 81 F. Supp. 518; United States v. Laney, E.D.S.C., 1951, 96 F. Supp. 482; Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, W.D.Ark., 1952, 13 F.R.D. 113; Heuer v. Basin Park Hotel and Resort, W.D.Ark., 1953, 114 F. Supp. 604. Cf. Batson v. Porter, 4 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 566.

  3. Robinson v. United States

    260 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1958)   Cited 7 times

    Even if this were not so, I do not believe the failure of appellants' two employed attorneys to file notices of appeal in time because they were ignorant of the Rule's requirement can be said to be excusable neglect, in view of the fact that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have been in effect about twelve years. Burke v. Canfield, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 127, 111 F.2d 526; Maghan v. Young, 1946, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 154 F.2d 13; Christoffel v. United States, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 190 F.2d 585; Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W.D.Ark. 1952, 13 F.R.D. 113; Ohlinger v. United States, D.C.S.D.Idaho 1955, 135 F. Supp. 40; 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 216. These lawyers, retained by the appellants, were present and active throughout the trial, and also represent them on appeal.

  4. Scola v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    No. 05-1170-CV-W-FJG (W.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant cites to cases which define excusable neglect as "good faith and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the rules." SeeIvy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir. 1997), quoting Adams v. AlliedSignal General Aviation Avionics, 74 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 1996); Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, 13 F.R.D. 113, 120 (W.D. Ark. 1952). Using the above definition, defendant argues that plaintiff's reasons for not meeting the Court's deadline does not constitute excusable neglect.

  5. United States v. Wheeler

    161 F. Supp. 193 (W.D. Ark. 1958)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that facts deemed admitted as to one defendant because of his failure to respond to the plaintiffs request for admissions are not binding on a codefendant

    It is firmly established that the failure of a party to answer requests for admission of facts amounts in law to an admission of the truth of the requested facts. Handley v. City of Hope, D.C.W.D.Ark., 137 F. Supp. 442; Heuer v. Basin Park Hotel and Resort, D.C.W.D.Ark., 114 F. Supp. 604; Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W.D.Ark., 13 F.R.D. 113. As a matter of fact, it makes little difference in the instant case since most of the facts sought by the requests for admissions are matters of public record about which there could be no dispute.

  6. Jim's Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Shutok

    153 F. Supp. 274 (W.D. Pa. 1957)   Cited 3 times
    In Jim's Trailer Sales v. Shutok (D.C. Pa.), 153 F. Supp. 274 the plaintiff's action was for repossession of a house trailer.

    " This ground has no merit; defendant, with ample opportunity to do so, never offered any facts upon which the court could find "excusable neglect" pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. See Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W.D.Ark. 1952, 13 F.R.D. 113, 120 et seq.; 2 Moore, Fed.Prac. ¶ 6.08. "2.

  7. Handley v. City of Hope, Arkansas

    137 F. Supp. 442 (W.D. Ark. 1956)   Cited 8 times

    However, defendant's answer to the requests for admissions was not sworn to, and as a matter of law the requests for admissions stand admitted. Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W.D.Ark., 13 F.R.D. 113; Heuer v. Basin Park Hotel and Resort, D.C.W.D.Ark., 114 F. Supp. 604. The requests for admissions, which must be deemed as admitted, establish that the defendant operated a swimming pool in the City of Hope; that admissions were charged; that all members of the Caucasian race were admitted to said pool and that it was being operated exclusively for the use and benefit of the Caucasian race; that the residents of the City of Hope are not exclusively members of the Caucasian race; that the deceased was accepted as a customer on June 23, 1954; that the lifeguards on duty, who were agents of the defendant, knew that the deceased could not swim; that the pool has deep water which is over the head of the deceased; that the deceased died as a result of drowning; that she suffered great pain and suffering; that the cost of her funeral was $750; and that her parents suffered great pain, anguish, and mental suffering as a result of her drowning.

  8. United States v. Lemons

    125 F. Supp. 686 (W.D. Ark. 1954)   Cited 12 times

    It is well settled that such admissions are the equivalent of sworn testimony. Ark-Tenn Distributing Corp. v. Breidt, 3 Cir., 209 F.2d 359; Dorsey v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 7 Cir., 197 F.2d 468; Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.Ark., 13 F.R.D. 113; Beasley v. United States, D.C.S.C., 81 F. Supp. 518; Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas Electric Co., D.C.Iowa, 92 F. Supp. 118. However, there is a dearth of authority on the question of whether the admissions are absolutely binding upon the party making them.

  9. Heuer v. Basin Park Hotel and Resort

    114 F. Supp. 604 (W.D. Ark. 1953)   Cited 12 times

    This Court has only recently had occasion to pass upon the effect of the failure of a party to swear to his admissions. See Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.Ark., 13 F.R.D. 113. There is no doubt but that a failure to swear to said admissions amounts, in law, to an admission of the requested facts.

  10. Sieb's Hatcheries v. Lindley

    111 F. Supp. 705 (W.D. Ark. 1953)   Cited 14 times
    Ruling a fraudulent transfer may not be set aside unless the property conveyed was subject to satisfaction of the complaining creditor's debt

    The question of whether the defendants should be allowed to amend their response to the request for admission of facts and the proposed amendment thereto was considered by the court and on September 30, 1952, the court rendered its opinion thereon and in accordance therewith the motion and the amended motion of defendants, Lester Lindley, F.M. Lindley and Sherman Madden, were denied, and the defendants were directed to file and serve briefs in opposition to the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment. See, Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc., v. Lindley, D.C.W.D.Ark., 13 F.R.D. 113. Following the filing of the opinion and the entry of the order in accordance therewith, the defendants filed their brief in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the court then considered the motion and briefs filed by the respective parties and, on November 25, 1952, filed its opinion sustaining the motion for summary judgment against defendants, Lester Lindley and F.M. Lindley, and directed that the plaintiff make proof of the amount due it on a judgment obtained in this court against Ozark Poultry Egg, Inc., on January 16, 1952.