Wolfsohn v. Hankin
Cases that cite this one
77 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Mr. Jesse Pinion, Mrs. Jesse Pinion, Maurice Daffron, Shirley Daffron v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A. (11th Cir. 1991)
- United Artists Corp. & L.P.A.A., Marcello Danon v. La Cage Aux Folles, Inc. (9th Cir. 1985)
- Lisa Panhorst Joanne Jones John M. Jones v. United States (4th Cir. 2001)
- Home & Family, Inc. v. England Resources Corp. (In re Home & Family, Inc.) (10th Cir. 1996)
- Fairway Center Corporation v. U.I.P. Corporation (8th Cir. 1974)
- Felix Butler, Cross-Appellant v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., Cross-Appellee (11th Cir. 1986)
- Schaefco, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (Wash. 1993)
- John Varhol v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, D/B/A Amtrak (7th Cir. 1990)
- Kraus v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (3d Cir. 1990)
- Otis Lee Fairley v. Lloyd Jones (5th Cir. 1987)
- Houghton v. COUNTY COM'RS OF KENT CTY. (Md. 1986)
- Carl Lawrence v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters (6th Cir. 2003)
- Howard James Moore v. South Carolina Labor Board (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- Debbie Fiester, an Individual v. Allan Turner (9th Cir. 1986)
- Higginson v. United States (6th Cir. 1967)
- Higginson v. United States (6th Cir. 1967)
- Bowles v. Russell (Supreme Court of the United States 2007)
- Lawrence v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (6th Cir. 2003)
- Clifton E. Spencer v. Ernest Sutton (4th Cir. 2001)
- Bailey v. Sharp (7th Cir. 1986)
- Sonoma V v. Sells (9th Cir. 1983)
- Robert W. Flint, Jr. v. Francis Howard, Warden, Adult Correctional Institution (1st Cir. 1972)
- MURASKO v. Loo (Haw. 2011)
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
WOLFSOHN, EXECUTRIX,
v.
HANKIN ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Fred I. Simon for petitioner.
Gregory Hankin, pro se, and John V. Long for respondent Hankin.
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 and 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 *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. 384, 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.