Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. Amcell F Atl. City, Inc., 20 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. Amcell F Atl. City, Inc., 20 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 · …we reject appellees' contention that the clerk's office was not 'inaccessible' because it was physically possible to file papers in the district court's 24-hour 'drop box. at p. 502 ✓
17 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lily Keyser Maria Sofia Robledo Richard M. Cisneros v. Sacramento City Unified School District, a Public Entity and and James Sweeney (ca9, 2001-09-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lily Keyser Maria Sofia Robledo Richard M. Cisneros v. Sacramento City Unified School District, a Public Entity and and James Sweeney (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we reject appellees' contention that the clerk's office was not 'inaccessible' because it was physically possible to file papers in the district court's 24-hour 'drop box.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lily Keyser Maria Sofia Robledo Richard M. Cisneros v. Sacramento City Unified School District, a Public Entity and James Sweeney (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we reject appellees' contention that the clerk's office was not inaccessible' because it was physically possible to file papers in the district court's 24-hour drop box.
cited Cited "see" Jones v. United States of America
D.D.C. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tel. and Data Sys., Inc. v. Amcell F Atlantic City, Inc., 20 F.3d 501, 501 (D.C.Cir.1994). 3 In that case, the Clerk’s Office and the Court had been closed due to inclement weather.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States Leather, Inc. v. H & W Partnership
5th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Telephone & Data Sys. v. Arncell F Atlantic City, 20 F.3d 501 , 502 (D.C.Cir.1994) (per curiam) (rejecting “appellees’ contention that the clerk’s office was not ‘inaccessible’ because it was physically possible to file papers in the district court’s 24-hour drop box”); Frey v. Woodard, 748 F.2d 173, 175 (3rd Cir.1984); Connors v. United States, 711 F.Supp. 479, 480-81 (C.D.Ill.1989); see also In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., an Iowa Corporation United States Cellular Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
v.
Amcell F Atlantic City, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc
94-7021.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 22, 1994.
20 F.3d 501
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 19235
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #30,830 of 633,719
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)

20 F.3d 501

305 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 28 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1531

TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC., an Iowa Corporation;
United States Cellular Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, Appellants,
v.
AMCELL F ATLANTIC CITY, INC., a New Jersey Corporation;
Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc.

No. 94-7021.

United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.

April 22, 1994.

Before: MIKVA, Chief Judge; WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

[*~501]1

Upon consideration of the court's order to show cause, filed February 3, 1994; appellants' response thereto; appellees' reply to the response; appellants' motion for leave to file a reply thereto, and the lodged reply, it is

2

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a reply to appellees' reply be granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged document. It is

[*~501]3

FURTHER ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. Appellants' notice of appeal was due, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), on January 19, 1994, 30 days after December 20, 1993, the date of entry of the district court's order dismissing the action. Because the courthouse, including the district court clerk's office, was closed on January 19 and 20 due to inclement weather, we conclude that the clerk's office was "inaccessible" on those dates, and that the notice of appeal was timely filed on January 21, 1994, the date on which the courthouse and clerk's office reopened. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a); Fed.R.App.P. 26(a). We reject appellees' contention that the clerk's office was not "inaccessible" because it was physically possible to file papers in the district court's 24-hour "drop box." Cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Gridiron Steel Co., 382 U.S. 32, 33, 86 S.Ct. 152, 153, 15 L.Ed.2d 26 (1965) (per curiam) (notice of appeal due on Saturday timely filed on following Monday, notwithstanding possibility of filing under local order requiring district court to be open for business on Saturday mornings); Reyes-Cardona v. J.C. Penney Co., 690 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1982) (per curiam) (Puerto Rican legal holiday excluded under Rule 6(a) from time for filing Rule 59(e) motion, even though district court clerk's office open on that day); Prudential Oil & Minerals Co. v. Hamlin, 261 F.2d 626, 627 (10th Cir.1958) (per curiam) (Utah state holiday excluded under Rule 6(a), where clerk's office, although technically open, "locked and unattended"). Appellees' position is plainly inconsistent with the "considerations of liberality and leniency which find expression in Rule 6(a)." Union Nat. Bank v. Lamb, 337 U.S. 38, 41, 69 S.Ct. 911, 913, 93 L.Ed. 1190 (1949).

[*~502]4

The Clerk is directed to process this appeal in the normal course.