Legal Opinion

William Carl Cunningham Et Ux., and Glenn A. Price Et Ux. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 17, 1961No. 17049PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The order of dismissal and the order denying motion to vacate the dismissal are affirmed.

We have here a situation where the Court in its discretion might have granted the motion to vacate. But it did not. And, we cannot say it was an abuse of discretion not to do so. The trial court was entitled to regard the affidavits of the parties plaintiff as implausible, or as not actually reaching the crucial point of why the plaintiffs did not show up at the time appointed for the trial of their cases when the cases were dismissed.

The appellants have sought to strike certain matter dehors the official…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Al-Torki v. KaempenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  2. Moore v. CherryNevada Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Samber v. Chris Berg, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Ahmed Al-Torki, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Dr. Charles E. Kaempen, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee v. Inger M. Kaempen Kaempen & AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  5. Pace v. DanielDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API