Wolfsohn Vs. Hankin

Wolfsohn vs Hankin

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Feb-24-1964

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100975

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/100975
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Feb-24-1964
Case Number: 376 U.S. 203
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wolfsohn

Respondent

Hankin

Excerpt

.....mr. justice stewart and mr. justice white join, dissenting. i have concluded that harris truck lines v. cherry meat packers, 371 u. s. 215 (1962), should be confined to its peculiar facts, i.e., a finding of "excusable neglect" under rule 73(a) of the federal rules of civil procedure. i say this, although i joined harris, because the court has used harris to spawn the present hopeless confusion, which i never contemplated at the time of its decision. harris was the authority upon which the court rested thompson v. immigration and naturalization service, 375 u. s. 384 (1964), despite the fact that thompson involved rules 52(b) and 59(b) and (e), with their specific requirements that the motion must be made or served not later than 10 days after the page 376 u. s. 204 entry of judgment. the court brushed aside these express and unambiguous mandates of congress with the assertion that thompson "fits squarely within the letter and spirit of harris. " 375 u. s. 375 u.s. 384, 375 u. s. 387 . and now comes a third case, involving the same rule 59(b), which further compounds the subversion of the rules. it appears clear to me that, through harris, this court has given trial judges the de facto power to grant extensions of time, directly contra to the definite requirements of rules 52(b) and 59 and the command of rule 6(b) that the court "may not extend the time for taking any action under rules . . . 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e). . . ." i therefore respectfully dissent.

Full Judgment

Wolfsohn v. Hankin - 376 U.S. 203 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964)

Wolfsohn v. Hankin

No. 680

Decided February 24, 1964

376 U.S. 203

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 116 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 321 F.2d 393.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment is reversed. Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U. S. 215 ; Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U. S. 384 .

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE join, dissenting.

I have concluded that Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers, 371 U. S. 215 (1962), should be confined to its peculiar facts, i.e., a finding of "excusable neglect" under Rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I say this, although I joined Harris, because the Court has used Harris to spawn the present hopeless confusion, which I never contemplated at the time of its decision. Harris was the authority upon which the Court rested Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 U. S. 384 (1964), despite the fact that Thompson involved Rules 52(b) and 59(b) and (e), with their specific requirements that the motion must be made or served not later than 10 days after the

Page 376 U. S. 204

entry of judgment. The Court brushed aside these express and unambiguous mandates of Congress with the assertion that Thompson "fits squarely within the letter and spirit of Harris. " 375 U. S. 375 U.S. 384, 375 U. S. 387 . And now comes a third case, involving the same Rule 59(b), which further compounds the subversion of the rules. It appears clear to me that, through Harris, this Court has given trial judges the de facto power to grant extensions of time, directly contra to the definite requirements of Rules 52(b) and 59 and the command of Rule 6(b) that the court "may not extend the time for taking any action under rules . . . 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e). . . ." I therefore respectfully dissent.

Same Parties Wolfsohn vs Hankin Same Subject Right to Information