U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Juliet C. Bryan v. Chalmers F. Groff

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 15, 1958 · No. 14220_1 · Prettyman, Burger, Madden, Claims

259 F.2d 162; 104 U.S. App. D.C. 5; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4711 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. H. Eugene Bryan, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. N. Meyer Baker, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.

Sherrod v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1978)
Greater Baton Rouge Golf Ass'n v. Recreation & Park Commission (5th Cir. 1975)
Antonopoulos v. Eisner (Ohio Ct. App. 1972)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court. Appellant Bryan filed a civil action in that court against ap-pellee Groff “to reform note and other relief.” Groff filed a motion for summary judgment, and it was set for hearing. Counsel for Bryan was not present when the motion was called. The court granted the motion. A date, two days thereafter, was set fo;? the presentation of a formal order granting summary judgment. Counsel for Bryan was duly notified. Another attorney appeared and informed the court that Mr. Bryan was not then present because he was engaged in a case in Virginia, and that Mr. Bryan’s failure to appear at the hearing on the motion was due to his engagement in another court. The District Court entered judgment.

Although Mr. Bryan tells us that he informed the assignment commissioner of his conflicting engagements, he at no time took steps to inform the court or the clerk of the court. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. 2

Affirmed.

. Rule 9(d) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reads as follows: “If at the time set for hearing there be no appearance for the moving party the court may treat the motion as submitted or waived, or continue or strike it from the motion calendar. If there be no appearance for the opposing side, it may be treated as conceded.”

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.