Document: 375 U.S. 384 84 S.Ct. 397 11 L.Ed.2d 404 THOMPSONv.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. No. 496. Jan. 6, 1964. Hal Witt, for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, a native national of Canada, filed petition naturalization under the provisions § 310(b) Nationality Act 1940, 8 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) 710(b), now 1430. On April 18, 1962, United States District Court Northern Illinois entered final order denying on ground that petitioner had failed to establish his attachment Constitution. Twelve days later, 30, served notice Immigration Naturalization Service he would appear before trial judge May 2, with post-trial motions 'to amend certain findings fact pursuant Rule 52 F.R.C.P. new 59 F.R.C.P.' The Government raised no objection as timeliness these motions, court specifically declared 'motion trial' was made 'in ample time.' October 16, were denied. December within 60 denial but not original entry judgment by Court, appeal. then moved in Appeals dismiss appeal been 60-day period prescribed 73(a) Federal Rules Civil Procedure petitioner's untimely hence did toll running time granted motions. Petitioner seeks review certiorari dismissal 2 designates 'the which an may be taken' this type case '60 days' from appealed * *.' also declares that: 3 full fixed subdivision commences run is computed any following orders upon timely motion such rules: granting or 52(b) make additional *; alter judgment; 59.' (Emphasis added.) It clear if 'timely,' appeal, disposition timely. alleges, however, since applicable rules provide they must 'served later than 10 after judgment,' 12 judgment. concludes, therefore, there 'timely motion' designated 73(a), be, not, 4 Although admits until judgment, claims should deemed 'from receipt judgment' lawyers who day entered. He claims, moreover, relied Government's failure raise claim untimeliness when Court's explicit statement time'; question about at juncture, could have, presumably rather waiting, did, disposed 5 In recent involving closely related issue, we recognized obvious great hardship party relies judge's finding 'excusable neglect' prior expiration (applicable filing appeal) suffers reversal *' has expired. Harris Truck Lines, Inc., v. Cherry Meat Packers, 371 215, 217, 83 283, 285, 9 261. had, received 30-day extension neglect based learn judgment.' Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 73(a). beyond period. Appeals, concluding meaning held erred dismissed We reversed remanded 'so heard its merits.' 6 Ibid. See Lieberman Gulf Oil Corp., Cir., 315 F.2d 403, cert. denied, 823, 62, 56. 7 instant cause fits squarely letter spirit Harris. Here, there, act which, properly done, postponed deadline concluded done. assumedly old deadline. And here, Accordingly, view 'unique circumstances,' supra, 261, grant writ certiorari, vacate remand so merits. ordered. Judgment vacated Appeals. Mr. Justice CLARK, whom HARLAN, STEWART WHITE join, dissenting. I agree it have jurisdiction hear Petitioner's filed, 12th 14th day. are phrased mandatory terms: 'Rule 52(b): 'Upon 13 59(b): 'A shall 14 59(e): supplied.) 15 6(b) says 'may extend taking action 52(b), 59(b), (d) (e) except extent conditions stated them.' These requirements cannot enlarged parties. None provides authorizes, 'upon showing excusable 'not exceeding 30 herein prescribed.' provision 'questions presented' here. terminated 59. But here contends court's time,' considered together acquiescence, sufficient effect termination. Whether spontaneous agreement shown record legal significance. say extended. 16 light facts 'fits spirit' Inc. 261 (1962). As read two cases, Lines does touch problem trial, application enlarge 'properly entertained initial allowed docketing elapsed.' 216, said entitled 'great deference reviewing court' 'obvious finding.' Finally, circumstances ppeals ought disturbed ruling.' That far cry where pass trial. To escape this, either reads into rules, contrary specific prohibition 6(b), authorization treats being despite allege neglect.' By thus authorizing entertain thereby extends And, said, error entertaining validated acquiescence Government. elementary parties confer court. 17 significance whatsoever because limiting language 'mandatory jurisdictional (can)not extended regardless excuse.' Robinson, 361 220, 229, 80 282, 288, 259 (1960). my abide them, emasculate them. 18 procedure necessary part orderly system justice. Their efficacy, depends willingness courts enforce them according their terms. Changes whose inflexibility turned out work effected process amendment, ad hoc relaxations particular cases. Such dispensations long actually produce mischievous results, undermining certainty causing confusion among lower bar. Cf. 406, 407. 19 denied present case, affirm

Category: 0