Carl Greco v. Mary De Camp Reynolds & Lillian McLaughlin Mary De Camp Reynolds, in No. 17621, Lillian McLaughlin in No. 17622, 416 F.2d 965 (3rd Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Carl Greco v. Mary De Camp Reynolds & Lillian McLaughlin Mary De Camp Reynolds, in No. 17621, Lillian McLaughlin in No. 17622, 416 F.2d 965 (3rd Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fernandes v. United States (ksd, 1996-11-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fernandes v. United States
D. Kan. · 1996 · confidence medium
E.g., Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 976 , 108 S.Ct. 486 , 487, 98 L.Ed.2d 485 (1987) (receiving actual notice and failing to respond is culpable conduct); Ben Sager Chemicals, supra, 560 F.2d at 809 (neither ignorance nor care lessness by party or his attorney is proper basis for relief under Rule 60(b)); Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972) (party’s failure to fully inform counsel does not provide grounds for relief); Greco v. Reynolds, 416 F.2d 965, 965 (3d Cir.1969) (defendant’s failure to answer despite repeated…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cessna Finance Corporation v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., Paul Bielenberg
10th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See generally Ben Sager Chemicals International, Inc. v. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir.1977) (neither ignorance nor carelessness by a party or his attorney is a proper basis for Rule 60(b) relief); Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir.1972) (party’s failure to fully inform counsel does not provide grounds for relief); Greco v. Reynolds, 416 F.2d 965, 965 (3d Cir.1969) (defendant’s failure to answer despite repeated written admonitions of plaintiff’s attorneys constitutes inexcusable neglect); Greenspahn v. Joseph E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Olympic Gardens, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania v. Mahoney, 371 U.S. 888 , 83 S.Ct. 187 , 9 L.Ed.2d 123 (1962), whether plaintiff would be substantially prejudiced thereby; Medunic v. Lederer, 533 F.2d at 893 ; Mannke v. Benjamin Moore & Co., 375 F.2d 281, 285 (1967); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Smeck, 78 F.R.D. 537, 540 (E.D.Pa.1978); Caruso v. Drake Motor Lines, Inc., 78 F.R.D. at 588; Thorne v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 77 F.R.D. at 398 ; Diversified Utilities Sales, Inc. v. Monte Fusco Excavating Contracting Co., 71 F.R.D. at 665 ; Hamilton v. Edell, 67 F…
cited Cited "see" Petition of De Roma
D.N.J. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, Greco v. Reynolds, 416 F.2d 965 (3d Cir. 1969); England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304 (9th Cir.1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carl Greco
v.
Mary De Camp Reynolds and Lillian McLaughlin Mary De Camp Reynolds, in No. 17621, Lillian McLaughlin in No. 17622
17622.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Oct 9, 1969.
416 F.2d 965
Published

416 F.2d 965

Carl GRECO
v.
Mary De Camp REYNOLDS and Lillian McLaughlin, Mary De Camp
Reynolds, Appellant in No. 17621, Lillian
McLaughlin, Appellant in No. 17622.

Nos. 17621, 17622.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 30, 1969.
Decided Oct. 9, 1969.

William B. Freilich, LaBrum & Doak, Philadelphia, Pa. (James M. Marsh, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Robert A. Korn, Winkour & Kahn, Philadelphia, Pa. (David H. Moskowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STALEY, SEITZ and STAHL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against appellants in a diversity personal injury action.

2

Despite repeated written admonitions of appellee's attorneys during the ten months following the filing of the complaint, neither appellants nor their insurer entered an appearance or filed an answer. A review of the record fails to reveal 'excusable neglect' within the meaning of F.R.C.P. 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A. The non-testimonial affidavit concerning the omissions of Allstate Insurance Company is insufficient. Clearly there was no abuse of discretion by the district court.

3

Accordingly, the order of the district court will be affirmed.