Ida Mae Lunderville v. James K. Allen, 366 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Ida Mae Lunderville v. James K. Allen, 366 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tolson v. Hodge (ca4, 1969-05-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Tolson v. Hodge
4th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Lunderville v. Allen, 366 F.2d 445 (2 Cir. 1966) (reversing denial of relief below).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Troy L. Tolson v. Melba Joyce Hodge, Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur Eugene Hodge, Troy L. Tolson v. Melba Joyce Hodge, Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur Eugene Hodge
4th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Lunderville v. Allen, 366 F.2d 445 (2 Cir. 1966) (reversing denial of relief below). 24 We are in agreement with the authorities which we have cited, and to us they indicate that the shortness of the delay involved, the absence of gross neglect on the part of the plaintiff, the lack of prejudice to defendant, and the assertion of what may be a meritorious defense, collectively establish that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the district judge in not relieving plaintiff of the default judgment and in permitting a response to the counterclaim out of time.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ida Mae Lunderville
v.
James K. Allen
30320_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sep 23, 1966.
366 F.2d 445
Published

366 F.2d 445

Ida Mae LUNDERVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James K. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16.

Docket 30320.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued September 22, 1966.

Decided September 23, 1966.

Lisman & Lisman, Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff-appellee.

McNamara & Larrow, Burlington, Vt., for defendant-appellant.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

A motion for judgment by default alleging failure of defendant-appellant timely to answer plaintiff's complaint was granted in the court below. Defendant-appellant on appeal maintains that, too hastily under the circumstances of this particular case, he has been deprived of his day in court and has been inequitably prevented from defending upon the merits.

2

It indeed appears that the court below has a heavy docket and that it must of necessity and as a general rule, in that busy court, dispose of cases with dispatch where issue is not timely joined. Nevertheless, in order to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice, in this particular case it is desirable to afford appellant an opportunity to defend plaintiff's complaint upon the merits.

3

The judgment for plaintiff is ordered vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings below.