Lehman v. United States
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KRAFT, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion for a new trial which, in effect, alleges that plaintiff was deprived of her day in court because her counsel was not given adequate time to notify plaintiff to be in court prior to the commencement of her trial. The real purpose of the motion, however, is to relieve counsel of the consequences of his own inattention.
In support of the motion, plaintiff and her counsel have filed affidavits averring that they were informed by the trial Judge’s law clerk, on Friday, March 13, 1970, that plaintiff could remain at home in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Duisberg v. MarkhamCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ondrey E. Gaspar, a Minor by Frank S. Gaspar v. M. Rafik Kassm v. Dennis L. Smetzer, Third-Party-DefendantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Earl Realty, Inc. v. Leonetti (In Re Leonetti)District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Gaspar v. KassmDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973