Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
315 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 29 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Home & Family, Inc. v. England Resources Corp. (In Re Home & Family, Inc.) (ca10, 1996-06-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Home & Family, Inc. v. England Resources Corp. (In Re Home & Family, Inc.) (5×) also: Cited "see"
10th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Wolfsohn, 376 U.S. at 203 , 84 S.Ct. at 699 (Clark, J., dissenting).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Mr. Jesse Pinion, Mrs. Jesse Pinion, Maurice Daffron, Shirley Daffron v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A. (14×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
The court then expressed its "concern in this area" by recalling Justice Clark's Wolfsohn dissent, which objected that the Supreme 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).' " Butler, 804 F.2d at 617 -18 (quoting Wolfsohn, 376 U.S. at 203 , 84 S.Ct. at 699 (Clark, J., dissenting)). 39 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kraus v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
The dissent in Wolfsohn objected that “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).” 376 U.S. at 204 , 84 S.Ct. at 699.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Kraus v. Consolidated Rail Corporation. Ronald Shoemaker v. Consolidated Rail Corporation. Wayne Owens v. Consolidated Rail Corporation. Charles Barber v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
3rd Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
The dissent in Wolfsohn objected that "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)." 376 U.S. at 204 , 84 S.Ct. at 699.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Otis Lee Fairley v. Lloyd Jones (5×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Wolfsohn, 376 U.S. at 203 , 84 S.Ct. at 699.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Felix Butler, Cross-Appellant v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., Cross-Appellee (4×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Id. at 203, 84 S.Ct. at 699 (Clark, J., with Harlan, Stewart, & White, JJ., dissenting).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United Artists Corp. & L.P.A.A., Marcello Danon v. La Cage Aux Folles, Inc. (12×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Wolfsohn, 376 U.S. at 203 , 84 S.Ct. at 699.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Kirk Marsh
4th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964) (per curiam). 14 error meant that Marsh was not informed by the court of his remaining appellate rights.
examined Cited "see" Bowles v. Russell (4×)
SCOTUS · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See n. 3, supra. [6] Three, if we include Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam) . [7] As a member of the Federal Judiciary, I cannot help but think that reliance on our orders is reasonable.
examined Cited "see" Wiersma v. Bank of the West (3×)
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384, 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964); Harris Truck Lines v. Cheny Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962).
examined Cited "see" Cressionnie v. Hample (3×)
5th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Fairley v. Jones, 824 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir.1987); see Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (mem.), rev'g 321 F.2d 393 (D.C.Cir.1963); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384, 386-87 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964). 7 .
examined Cited "see" Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden (3×)
6th Cir. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam) (extending time to move for a rehearing where extension was granted within the statutory deadline). *675 The most recent, and only subsequent, decision to discuss Thompson is Ostemeck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 , 109 S.Ct. 987 , 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989).
cited Cited "see" Bowles v. Russell
6th Cir. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964) (per curiam) (extending time to move for a rehearing where extension was granted within the statutory deadline).
cited Cited "see" Panhorst v. United States
4th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 (1962).
examined Cited "see" Lisa Panhorst Joanne Jones John M. Jones v. United States (3×)
4th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962).
examined Cited "see" Hahn v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority (3×)
D.C. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See part II, supra. 5 .See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962) (per curiam). 6 .
examined Cited "see" Howard James Moore v. South Carolina Labor Board (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn, 376 U.S. at 203-04 , 84 S.Ct. at 699 ; Thompson, 375 U.S. at 385-87 , 84 S.Ct. at 397-99; Harris Truck Lines, Inc., 371 U.S. at 216-17 , 83 S.Ct. at 284-85 .
examined Cited "see" Schaefco, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (5×)
Wash. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 11 L.
examined Cited "see" Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., William Erik Byrne and Don Robbins v. James Forrest Fitch and Marion T. Fitch (3×)
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964), mem. rev’g 321 F.2d 393 (D.C.Cir.1963); Fairley v. Jones, 824 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1987).
examined Cited "see" Energy Mgt. P 26,666 United States of America v. Glenn Martin Heller, D/B/A Beacon Hill Gulf (3×)
1st Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see" Patchet v. Anwiler (In Re Anwiler) (3×)
9th Cir. BAP · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam); Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see" Frain v. District of Columbia (3×)
D.C. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 [ 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 ] (1964) (per curiam), reversing 116 U.S.App.D.C. 127 , 321 F.2d 393 (1963) (per curiam); Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384, 386 , 84 S.Ct. 397, 398 , 11 *451 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see" Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick) (3×)
9th Cir. BAP · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam); Thomp son v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam); Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see" George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen (3×)
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam); United Artists Corp. & L.P.A.A. v. La Cage Aux Folies, Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1268-70 (9th Cir.1985).
examined Cited "see" Debbie Fiester, an Individual v. Allan Turner (3×)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203, 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699, 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam) (reliance on district court’s erroneous grant of extension of time to file motion for rehearing); United Artists Corp. v. La Cage Aux Folies, Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1268 (9th Cir.1985) (reliance on district court’s erroneous grant of extension of time to file notice of appeal).
discussed Cited "see" Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives, Inc. v. Local Union No. 369, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio
6th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Denley v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 733 F.2d 39, 42 (6th Cir. 1984) (characterizing the decision in Thompson). 10 Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964) (per curiam), illustrates the other type of reasonable reliance.
examined Cited "see" John Stephan Parisie v. J.W. Greer, Warden, Menard Correctional Center (3×)
7th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203, 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam); Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384, 387 , 84 S.Ct. 397, 398 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam); Fairway Center Corp. v. U.I.P.
examined Cited "see" In the Matter of Alexander (3×)
D.C. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam), reversing 116 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 321 F.2d 393 (1963) (per curiam); Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384, 386 , 84 S.Ct. 397, 398 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Adams
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Costello v. United States, 324 F.2d 260, 263 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 930 [ 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 650 ] (1964); United States v. Kapsalis, 313 F.2d 875, 876 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 856 [ 83 S.Ct. 1911 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1077 ] (1963).
examined Cited "see" Leo Vine v. Beneficial Finance Company, Inc., and Charles H. Dowd, Stuart A. Wixson, George J. Springer, C. H. Donohue and Crown Finance Company, Inc. (3×)
2d Cir. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964), reversing 116 U.S.App.D.C. 127 , 321 F.2d 393 (D.C.Cir.1963); Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964).
examined Cited "see" PRUDENTIAL–BACHE SECURITIES, INC., William Erik Byrne and Don Robbins, Plaintiffs– v. James Forrest FITCH and Marion T. Fitch (3×)
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964), mem. rev'g 321 F.2d 393 (D.C.Cir.1963); Fairley v. Jones, 824 F.2d 440 (5th Cir.1987).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Torras Herreria Y Construcciones, S.A. v. M/v Timur Star, Now Called the M/v Moran, Her Engines, Tackle Etc., and Singapore Bulk Carriers, Pte., Ltd. (3×)
6th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203, 204 , 84 S.Ct. 699, 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (Clark, J., dissenting) ("this Court has given trial judges the de facto power to grant extensions of time, directly contra to the definite requirements of Rule 52(b)____") 2 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Sonoma V v. Sells (3×)
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see, e.g." In Re Sonoma (3×)
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Robert W. Flint, Jr. v. Francis Howard, Warden, Adult Correctional Institution (6×)
1st Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964), rev'g, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 127 , 321 F.2d 393 (1963); Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964); Motteler v. J.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WOLFSOHN, EXECUTRIX,
v.
HANKIN Et Al.
680.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 6, 1964.
376 U.S. 203
Fred I. Simon for petitioner., Gregory Hankin, pro se, and John V. Long for respondent Hankin.
Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White.
Cited by 90 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

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.

Dissent

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.