J. L. Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue v. T. U. Sisson
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Querubin v. Thronas (Haw. 2005)
- Capital Films Corporation v. Charles Fries Productions, Inc. And American Broadcasting Company (5th Cir. 1980)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Development Corp. (5th Cir. 1993)
- Daniels v. Morris (5th Cir. 1984)
- Daniels v. Morris (5th Cir. 1984)
- Wayne Ernest Barker v. Ben Norman and Jack Ballas (5th Cir. 1981)
- Everett E. Powell v. Green Tree Servicing LLC (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)
- Aaron Fillmore v. Thomas F. Page (7th Cir. 2004)
- Fillmore, Aaron v. Page, Thomas F. (7th Cir. 2004)
- Kevorkian v. Glass (R.I. 2001)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Development Corp. (5th Cir. 1993)
- Anthony C. Prudhomme v. Tenneco Oil Co., Booker Drilling Co., D/B/A Grace Offshore Co. (5th Cir. 1992)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Julio S. Laguarta (5th Cir. 1991)
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Laguarta (5th Cir. 1991)
- Davis v. City of Charleston (8th Cir. 1987)
- Mangiaracina v. Gutierrez (Kan. Ct. App. 1986)
- Salvadore v. Major Electric & Supply, Inc. (R.I. 1983)
- Abrahamson Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)
- Estate of Arthur Smith, Jr. v. Tarrant County Hospital District (5th Cir. 1982)
- Underwood v. Hunter (5th Cir. 1979)
- Management Investors v. United Mine Workers Of America (6th Cir. 1979)
- Underwood v. Hunter (5th Cir. 1979)
- Management Investors v. United Mine Workers (6th Cir. 1979)
- Moses Davis, Jr., for Themselves Individually and as Members and Representatives of a Class of Other Persons Similarly Situated v. James Howard (5th Cir. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The question presented by this appeal is whether a summary judgment granted before the expiration of ten days after the time fixed for hearing is a valid judgment. Appellee Sisson filed this action for a refund of taxes for the calendar years 1953 and 1954 under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. After the appellant Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue, had filed his answer, appellee moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavit. The record shows that the motion was served upon the appellant, but the certificate of service is omitted and it is not contended that any time was fixed for the hearing of the motion. Some months after the motion was filed the court below granted summary judgment in favor of appellee.
It is provided under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., that a motion for summary judgment “shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.” No time was ever fixed for the hearing of this motion, and it is undisputed that the trial court did not have any rule fixing such time. See Rule 78, F.R.Civ.P. We do not think that the order entered by the court below, in the absence of a notice to the appellant of the time fixed for the hearing, was within its juridiction under the quoted portion of Rule 56. And cf. also Rule 6, F.R.Civ.P., and Bowdidge v. Lehman, District Director of Immigration, 6 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 366.
The judgment appealed from is, therefore, vacated and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.