green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
29.8 score
“has rejected this effort to circumvent rule 77(d)____”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Orshan v. Macchiarola
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
has rejected this effort to circumvent rule 77(d)____
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackie Osborne v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC and AMROCK, LLC
The Fifth Circuit “has pointedly announced that a party has a duty of diligence to inquire about the status of a case, and that Rule 60(b) relief will be afforded only in ‘unique circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257, 258 (5th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Peterson
Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012); Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257, 258 (5th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raphiel v. St Tammany Parish Inc
Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012); Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257, 258 (5th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
West v. Rieth
Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012); Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257, 258 (5th Cir. 1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Washington v. Ryan
(2×)
App. P. 4(a)(6), as recognized in Clark v. Lavallie, 204 F.3d 1038, 1040 (10th Cir. 2000); Wilson v. Atwood Grp., 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Jason D. and Andrea O'Neal
(2×)
See, e.g., Harnish v. Manatee County, Florida, 783 F.2d 1535, 1538 (11th Cir.1986) (‘By availing itself of the escape valve provided by Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in vacating and reentering its order on the Rule 59 motion, the court avoided the manifest injustice worked by a rigid application of the provisions of Rule 77(d) to the above-recited facts.’).”) (footnote added); Wilson v. Atwood Grp., 725 F.2d 255, 257 (5th Cir. 1984) (recognizing that “[b]ecause of . . . the ‘draconian effect’ of rule 77(d), courts have sought to palliate its results by invoking…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cleto Duran
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 77(d)(2); Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005-06 (5th Cir.1998); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1201-02, 1205-06 (5th Cir.1993); Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257-58 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Communications Network International, Ltd. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. (In Re WorldCom, Inc.)
(2×)
Leasing Servs., Inc.), 769 F.2d 911, 913-14 (2d Cir.1985) (decision mailed to but not received by appellant, who failed to check docket sheet because decision was issued faster than expected); Spika v. Vill. of Lombard, Ill., 763 F.2d 282, 283 (7th Cir.1985) (neither party received notice although the docket sheet indicated that such notice was mailed); Hall v. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 772 F.2d 42, 42 (3d Cir.1985) (same); Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 256 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc) (clerk's office failed to notify appellant); Case v. BASF Wyandotte, 737 F.2d 1034, 1034-…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Assoc Marine Equipment, L.L.C. v. Edmond Jones
See Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir.1985); Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257-58 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). 7 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Associated Marine Equipment LLC v. Jones
AME also suggests that the proper avenue for Jones to obtain relief would be a malpractice suit against his first attorney. 2 Granted, this court has previously held “that a party has a duty of diligence to inquire about the status of a case, and that Rule 60(b) relief will be afforded only in ‘unique circumstances.’ ” Pryor v. U.S. Postal Sew., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir.1985) (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257, 258 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lancaster v. Stevens
"We have consistently held that the simple failure of the clerk to mail notice of the entry of judgment, without more, does not permit relief to a party who has failed to appeal within the prescribed time." Id. at 231-32 (citing Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 256-58 (5th Cir.1984)). ¶ 21.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Osborne v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (In Re Osborne)
Moreover, “Rule 60(b) relief will be afforded only in ‘unique circumstances.’ ” Id. at 287 (citing Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257-58 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anglin v. Local Union 1351, International Longshoremen's Ass'n
Latham, 987 F.2d at 1204 (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.1984)(en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hodge v. Harris Cty Hosp Dist
We have recognized that “[t]he unique circumstances remedy applies where counsel fails to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed time based on its good faith reliance on a mistaken assurance or statement of the district court.”10 Thus, we have concluded that “the rule applies only where the district court makes an ‘affirmative representation’ or ‘specific assurance’ that a party’s notice of appeal was proper.”11 Hodge relies on, and urges use to adopt the reasoning of, Hollins v. Department of Corrections, a recent decision by another circuit.12 In Hollins, the Elevent…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bridgham v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
Pryor v. United States Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir.1985) (citing Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257-58 (5th Cir.) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jimmy Lancaster v. Dwight Presley
Cf. Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 256-58 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1222 , 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984) (“We have consistently held that the simple failure of the clerk to mail notice of the entry of judgment, without more, does not permit relief to a party who has failed to appeal "within the prescribed time.”). 2 Appellant’s petition, however, goes beyond a simple request for an extension of time to file an appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lancaster v. Presley
Cf. Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 256-58 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1222 , 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984) ("We have consistently held that the simple failure of the clerk to mail notice of the entry of judgment, without more, does not permit relief to a party who has failed to appeal within the prescribed time").2 1 "This Court has ... repeated and firmly held that Rule 60(b) cannot be used to extend the time for appeal." The purpose behind that firm rule is explained by Professor Wright in his section on Rule 60(b)(6): The broad power granted by clause (…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James A. Latham, Marian E. Latham, Movant-Appellant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Despite the fact that Wilson arose amidst what the Court described as “unique circumstances,” 725 F.2d at 258 , subsequent cases have read Wilson as es *1205 tablishing a clear rule: “failure to receive notice does not justify granting of 60(b) relief to extend [the] time for appeal.” In re Air Crash at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, 852 F.2d 842, 844 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam). 9 Even the dissenters in Wilson agreed with the proposition that “Rule 77(d) makes one exception to Rule 60(b)(6)’s grant of equitable power—the reason cannot be the clerk’s failure to notify.” Wilson, 7…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Despite the fact that Wilson arose amidst what the Court described as "unique circumstances," 725 F.2d at 258 , subsequent cases have read Wilson as establishing a clear rule: "failure to receive notice does not justify granting of 60(b) relief to extend [the] time for appeal." In re Air Crash at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, 852 F.2d 842, 844 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam).9 Even the dissenters in Wilson agreed with the proposition that "Rule 77(d) makes one exception to Rule 60(b)(6)'s grant of equitable power—the reason cannot be the clerk's failure to notify." Wilson, 725 F.2d at 258 (Clark, C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Longardner & Associates, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Landahl, Brown & Weed Associates, Inc
See, e.g., Polylok Corp. v. Manning, 793 F.2d 1318, 1320 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Rule 77(d) is “unconditional”); Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (Rule 77(d) is “strict, but its meaning is plain.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Arn
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Wallace v. McManus, 776 F.2d 915 (10th Cir.1985); Spika v. Village of Lombard, 763 F.2d 282, 284-85 (7th Cir.1985); Case v. BASF Wyandotte, 737 F.2d 1034, 1035 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 982 , 105 S.Ct. 386 , 83 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984); Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed sub nom.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur R. Tucker v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1222 , 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Donald Edward Raulerson
Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 1984). 3 The failure of an appellant to timely file a notice of appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ashby Enterprises, Ltd. v. Weitzman, Dym & Associates
(2×)
See also Spika v. Village of Lombard, Ill., 763 F.2d 282, 286 (7th Cir.1985) ("courts have uniformly held that Rule 77(d) bars Rule 60(b) relief when, as here, the sole reason asserted for that relief is the failure of a litigant to receive notice of the entry of an order or judgment") (emphasis in original); Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257 (5th Cir.) (en banc ) (same), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rogelio J. Cuevas v. Reading & Bates Corp., A/K/A Reading & Bates Offshore Drilling Co.
The request for extension of time to file notice of appeal in The Atwood Group had not been timely filed. 725 F.2d at 256.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dale Hall v. Community Mental Health Center of Beaver County
(2×)
Those courts which have allowed the use of 60(b) motions in such circumstances, however, have usually held that “the simple failure of the clerk to mail notice of the entry of judgment, without more, does not permit relief to a party who has failed to appeal within the prescribed time.” Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984) (Wilson II) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rayford v. Pryor, Jr. v. U.S. Postal Service
This Court has pointedly announced that a party has a duty of diligence to inquire about the status of a case, and that Rule 60(b) relief will be afforded only in “unique circumstances.” Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 257, 258 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dism’d, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carry Ray Tubbs v. George L. Campbell, M.D.
We held in Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc) that reliance on the clerk to give notice of judgment would not excuse the failure to appeal within the allowed time.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
PRUDENTIAL–BACHE SECURITIES, INC., William Erik Byrne and Don Robbins, Plaintiffs– v. James Forrest FITCH and Marion T. Fitch
Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
Naylor v. Sollie
See Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 1985) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b)(1) motion and noting “that a party has a duty of diligence to inquire about the status of a case, and that Rule 60(b) relief will be afforded only in ‘unique circumstances’” (quoting Wilson v. Atwood Grp., 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 1984))).
discussed
Cited "see"
Two-Way Media LLC v. AT & T, Inc.
(2×)
See Wilson v. Atwood Grp., 725 F.2d 255 , 257 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc) (“The rule is strict, but its meaning and purpose are plain.
cited
Cited "see"
Shahram Shakouri v. Gary Raines
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1201 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Murray
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 256-58 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
Wade v. Dretke
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.1984)(en banc); see also Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Wade v. Dretke
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 1984)(en banc); see also FED.
cited
Cited "see"
Ragin v. Sparkman
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc); see also FED.
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Amerada Hess Corporation
(2×)
See Wilson v. Atwood Group , 725 F.2d 255 , 257-58 (5th Cir. 1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Bacon v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255 , 257-58 (5th Cir. 1984).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Wood F. Jones and Mary Jones, Debtors. Wood F. Jones and Mary Jones v. W.J. Services, Inc.
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1222 , 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zapata Gulf Marine Corp. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority
See id. (quoting Wilson v. Atwood, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1222 , 105 S.Ct. 17 , 82 L.Ed.2d 912 (1984) (“unique circumstances do not excuse untimeliness when they are unrelated to counsel’s failure to file the appeal”).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Air Crash At Dallas/Fort Worth Airport On August 2, 1985.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Given our firm rule of not allowing a 60(b) motion to substitute for an appeal, we must examine Delta's reasons for the motion to determine whether this is an "unusual case" that warrants such extraordinary relief. 11 Wright Sec. 2864 at 215; see Wilson, 725 F.2d at 257-58 (failure to receive notice does not justify granting of 60(b) relief to extend time for appeal). 3 Although our cases do not give a great deal of guidance as to when Rule 60(b) relief would be proper, we have stated that "unique circumstances do not excuse untimeliness when they are unrelated to counsel's failure to file the…
examined
Cited "see"
Ellis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Given our firm rule of not allowing a 60(b) motion to substitute for an appeal, we must examine Delta’s reasons for the motion to determine whether this is an “unusual case” that warrants such extraordinary relief. 11 Wright § 2864 at 215; see Wilson, 725 F.2d at 257-58 (failure to receive notice does not justify granting of 60(b) relief to extend time for appeal). 3 Although our cases do not give a great deal of guidance as to when Rule 60(b) relief would be proper, we have stated that “unique circumstances do not excuse untimeliness when they are unrelated to counsel’s failure to …
cited
Cited "see"
Marvin Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
See F. Wilson v. Atwood *612 Group, [ 725 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. en banc), cert. dismissed, [— U.S. —] 105 S.Ct. 17 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 912 ] (1984)].
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of: WOOD F. JONES and MARY JONES, Debtors, WOOD F. JONES and MARY JONES v. W.J. SERVICES, INC
See Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1222 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re: Sealed Case (Bowles)
See, e.g., Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir., 1984) (en banc) (citing Mizell v. Att’y Gen. of the State of New York, 586 F.2d 942 , 944–45 n.2 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 967 (1979)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Sealed Case
See, e.g., Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc) (citing Mizell v. Att’y Gen. of the State of New York, 586 F.2d 942 , 944-45 n. 2 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 967 , 99 S.Ct. 1519 , 59 L.Ed.2d 783 (1979)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Glen Dale SHELVIN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
INLAND WELL SERVICE, INC., Et Al., Defendant-Appellant
v.
INLAND WELL SERVICE, INC., Et Al., Defendant-Appellant
81-3752.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 3, 1984.
Gibbens & Blackwell, John Blackwell, Iberia, La., for defendant-appellant., Richard R. Kennedy, Lafayette, La., Albert L. Boudreau, Jr., Abbeville, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Reavley, Jolly.
Published
PER CURIAM:
The parties, through counsel, have filed a joint motion to vacate previous action by this Court, 711 F.2d 581, and to remand this case to the district court so a judgment of dismissal in accordance with the settlement and compromise can be entered.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all previous action in this cause is hereby vacated and it is further ORDERED that this cause be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.