Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46 (1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46 (1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
370 citation events (95 in the last 25 years) across 50 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Diede v. McDonough, No. 2:20-cv-00456 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 29, 2022) · Strongest negative: Former Employees of Badger Coal Co. v. United States, 649 F. Supp. 818 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986)
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957 1991 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 47 holding that when the clerk of the district court received a notice of appeal within the thirty-day filing period, but did not "file" it within that period because the appellant failed to include the filing fee, the notice of appeal is nevertheless timely7 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Walter Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 5 F.4th 653 (6th Cir. 2021).published
    To our 1An appellant’s late payment of appellate fees is not a jurisdictional defect, see Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47 (1955); Fed.
  • Fleetwood v. McMahon, No. 1:19-cv-00675 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2019).
    Id. at 547 (citing Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47 (1955) (per curiam)).
  • Klemm v. Comm'r Ss, No. 06-16981 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2008).published
    In Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal was filed within the jurisdictional time period, not- withstanding the fact that the filing fee was not paid until after the deadline to appeal had passed. 349 U…
  • Strang v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 936 F. Supp. 1091 (J.P.M.L. 1996).published
    See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47 (1955); Arbuckle Wilderness, Inc. v. KFOR TV, Inc., 69 F.3d 547 (Table), 1995 WL 64700 (10th Circuit).
  • Arbuckle Wilderness, Inc., an Oklahoma Corp. Gerald D. Hagee, an Individual v. Kfor Tv, Inc., 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995).published
    (holding that when the clerk of the district court received a notice of appeal within the thirty-day filing period, but did not "file" it within that period because the appellant failed to include the filing fee, the not…)
  • Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).published 4 cites
    Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U. S. 46, 47 (1965); see also, e. g., Deloney v. Estelle, 661 F. 2d 1061, 1062-1063 (CA5 1981); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F. 2d 1089, 1091 (CA9 1980); United States v. Solly, 545 F. 2d 874, 876 (CA3 1976).
  • Donald Phillips v. Shastine Tangilag, M.D., 14 F.4th 524 (6th Cir. 2021).published
    See Parissi v. Telechron, 349 U.S. 46, 47 (1955) (per curiam).
At page 46 notice of appeal is timely if received by court within prescribed period4 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Morrison v. Duke, No. 2017-2312 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2018).published
    “untimely payment of the . . . fee d[oes] not vitiate the validity of petitioner’s notice of appeal”
  • Smith v. Mayor, Dist. of Columbia, No. 2015-1798 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2016).published
    Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court has long recognized that, with exceptions not relevant here, receipt by the clerk within the required time period satisfies the timely filing requirement for a notice of appeal in a civil case[.]” (citing Hou…
  • Walter Carter v. Larry Lack Harley Seimer Larry Woodlee Kevin Butler, 869 F.2d 1489 (6th Cir. 1989).unpublished
    (notice of appeal is timely if received by court within prescribed period)
  • Gerald Pierce v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 987 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2021).published
    (defining “file” as “[t]o place (a document) in a due manner among the records of a court)
99 L. Ed. at 868 cited at this page1 citing case
  • In re Texaco Inc., 102 B.R. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).published
    Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46 , 75 S.Ct. 577 , 99 L.Ed. 867, 868 (1955).
Other citing cases23 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 13 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PARISSI
v.
TELECHRON, INC. Et Al.
302.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 11, 1955.
Published opinion
349 U.S. 46
1955 U.S. LEXIS 943
Harry A. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Charles P. Bauer., Charles H. Walker argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Charles E. Nichols and Henry J. Zafian.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 119 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. The petitioner’s notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, together with his appeal bond, was received at the office of the Clerk of the District Court within the 30 days prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 2107 for filing a notice of appeal. In dispatching these papers the petitioner inadvertently failed to include the $5 fee required by 28 U. S. C. § 1917 to be paid “upon the filing” of a notice of appeal. The Clerk notified the petitioner of his omission, and declined to “file” the notice of appeal until he received the $5 fee three or four days later. By that time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. Upon petitioner’s motion the District Court made a nunc pro tunc order according the notice of appeal a filing date as of the date it was originally received by the Clerk.

[*47] The Court of Appeals, without opinion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner’s notice of appeal. Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 194 F. 2d 705 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1952), we disapprove. Our conclusion does not leave § 1917 without other sanctions.

Reversed.