Law Commons^™

Wellman V. State: Confusing The Standard Of Excusable Neglect, Andrew L. Black

Maine Law Review

In Maine, as in most other states, a person convicted of a criminal offense is entitled to state post-conviction review upon proper filing of a petition. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure establish deadlines for such a filing and for the responsive answer by the State. Application for an enlargement of time in which to respond requires the State to show cause. If, however, the State makes this application after the initial period for response, the Rules impose a much stricter standard—a showing of “excusable neglect.” In Wellman v. State the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, …

Wellman V. State: Confusing The Standard Of Excusable Neglect, Andrew L. Black

Maine Law Review

In Maine, as in most other states, a person convicted of a criminal offense is entitled to state post-conviction review upon proper filing of a petition. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure establish deadlines for such a filing and for the responsive answer by the State. Application for an enlargement of time in which to respond requires the State to show cause. If, however, the State makes this application after the initial period for response, the Rules impose a much stricter standard—a showing of “excusable neglect.” In Wellman v. State the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, …

Creditor’S Failure To File A Proof Of Claim Is Inexcusable Where Potential Danger Of Prejudice To Debtor Exists, Meghan Lombardo

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provide that when an act is required … to be done at or within a specified period … the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion… on motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Rule 9006 grants a pardon for late filings that were caused by neglect. The Supreme Court has defined neglect as “‘giv[ing] little attention or respect’ to a matter or… ‘to leave undone or unattended to especially …

No More Excuses: Refusing To Condone Mere Carelessness Or Negligence Under The "Excusable Neglect" Standard In Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)(1), Bree W. Weathersbee

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rule 60(b)' is an attempt to codify the equitable, common law practice of reforming judgments under special circumstances. The rule, inter alia, authorizes a court to relieve a party from a default judgment for "excusable neglect." This standard, however, is not defined in the rules, and courts have struggled with its meaning. Some circuits define the term liberally and often grant requests to vacate default judgments. Others adopt a strict interpretation and consistently refuse to vacate default judgments resulting from mere carelessness or negligence. Recently, in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the Supreme Court clarified the …

Prejudicial Reliance Upon A Trial Court's Ruling May Result In Suspension Of Federal Rules On Timeliness Of Appeals-Thompson V. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.; Wolfsohn V. Hankin, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., twelve days after the federal district court had entered an order denying a petition for naturalization, petitioner announced his intention of making motions for a new trial and amended findings of fact. Although the motions must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, the judge assured petitioner they were made in ample time, and no objection was raised by the Government. Six months later the motions were denied. Within sixty days of this denial, but not within sixty days of the original judgment, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. …

Judgments-Setting Aside-Failure Of "Local Agent" To Notify Corporation Of Service Of Summons, Lloyd J. Tyler, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Service of summons was made upon a ticket agent employed by a lessee of the defendant coach line in accordance with a North Carolina statute which provides that any person receiving or collecting money within the state for a corporation is a ''local agent" for the purpose of service of process. This agent did not notify the defendant corporation of the summons, and a default judgment was entered. On appeal it was held that the judgment should not be set aside for want of service of summons, since the ticket agent was within the statutory definition of ''local agent." The …