WARREN W. TARKINGTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a motion to reopen a judgment based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision conflicting with prior circuit law should be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, making the appeal timely.
Plaintiff's appeal of an original judgment was untimely. However, a subsequent Supreme Court decision conflicted with the circuit law relied upon by t…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Judge Edelstein correctly interpreted the rule of Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F. 2d 25, and other cases, and properly directed a verdict for the defendant under the law as then interpreted in this Circuit.
2. An appeal of the original judgment is barred by the fact that plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal until May 28, 1954, sixty-four days after entry of the original judgment. But the appeal is timely as to the question raised by the motion to reopen the judgment. See, e. g., United States v. Wis-sahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F. 2d 936.
3. On April 5, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, 98 L.Ed. 798, affirming, on the opinion below, the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Petterson v. Alaska S. S. Co., 205 F. 2d 478, 479. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit had expressly rejected the “ ‘relinquishment of control’ ” doctrine of the Second Circuit expressed in Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana DeVapores, 2 Cir., 202 F. 2d 25, and other cases. Since the doctrine of the Petterson case conflicts with the cases on which the trial judge relied in directing a verdict, the trial judge should have treated plaintiff’s motion as a motion under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A., to correct a mistake of the court. Thus viewed, plaintiff’s appeal is timely, for the motion was filed ten days after the decision of the Supreme Court in Petterson, and the notice of appeal filed within thirty days after the denial of that motion.
The judgment is reversed, and the action remanded for a new trial on the issue of unseaworthiness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alaska S.S. Co., Inc. v. Petterson, 347 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1954)
- Petterson v. Alaska S. S. Co., Inc., 205 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1953)
- United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc., 200 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1952)
- Mollica v. Compania Sud-Americana de Vapores (chilean Line), 202 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1953)