John Altseimer Horizon Helicopters Dennis Westerberg Sloane Westerberg v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 120 F.3d 268 (9th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
John Altseimer Horizon Helicopters Dennis Westerberg Sloane Westerberg v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 120 F.3d 268 (9th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Rogas (nvd, 2022-09-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Rogas
D. Nev. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Herb Goetz & Marlen Horn Assoc., Inc., 120 F.3d 268, at *2 (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (“Although a court may take 14 judicial notice of its own records, it cannot take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of all documents found therein.”). 15 26 5C Wright & Miller § 1370 (3d ed.). 16 27 The insurance policies do not contain a choice-of-law provision.
discussed Cited "see" USF Insurance v. Clarendon America Insurance
C.D. Cal. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
(See Request for Judicial Notice of Pleadings in Underlying Action in Considering the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment; Stipulation re Mutual Waiver/Withdrawal of Certain Evidentiary Objections to Documents Offered by Each Side in Support of the Cross-Motions for Summary JudgmenVSummary Adjudication ("Evid.Stip.”), ¶ 3.) The court “may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.” San Luis v. Badgley, 136 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1146 (E.…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re: Glenn S. Thomas
9th Cir. BAP · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
In re Gergely, 110 F.3d at 1448 ; see, e.g., 15 In re Herb Goetz & Marlen Horn Assoc., Inc., 120 F.3d 268 (9th Cir. 16 1997). 17 At the Trial, Mr. Parrish’s four declarations were admitted as 18 direct testimony.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Altseimer Horizon Helicopters Dennis Westerberg Sloane Westerberg
v.
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
96-16118.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 17, 1997.
120 F.3d 268
Unpublished

120 F.3d 268

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
John ALTSEIMER; Horizon Helicopters; Dennis Westerberg;
Sloane Westerberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-16118.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 1997[**]
Decided July 17, 1997.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[*]

2

John Altseimer filed appeals the district court's denial of Altseimer's motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

3

On March 20, 1996, the district court entered its order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On May 3, 1996, more than 10 days after the last day to file a timely notice of appeal, the plaintiff submitted, and the district court lodged, a notice of appeal specifying that Altseimer appealed "from the Judgment entered in this action on March 20, 1996." Altseimer simultaneously filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. On May 28, 1996, the district court judge denied Altseimer's motion to extend, and the district court clerk filed Altseimer's belated notice of appeal.

4

On appeal to this court, the Appellate Commissioner issued an order noting that Notice of Appeal filed on May 28, 1996 was untimely, and limiting the scope of the Altseimer's appeal to review of the district court's order denying Altseimer's motion for extension of time to file a late notice of appeal. Altseimer, however, never filed a notice of appeal from that order. Because a timely filed notice of appeal is both "mandatory and jurisdictional," we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a); Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); cf. Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1375 (9th Cir.1990) (Because the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable to the question of our jurisdiction to consider an appeal, we may reconsider an order of a motions panel).

5

DISMISSED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3