Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealaffidavitmotioncompliance
motiondeliberation

Related Cases

Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470
View Case »
Winfrey v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 495 F.3d 549
View Case »
Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 558 U.S. 1025, 130 S.Ct. 631 (Mem), 175 L.Ed.2d 480, 78 USLW 3130, 78 USLW 3289, 78 USLW 3293
View Case »
Titan Sports, Inc. v. Comics World Corp., 870 F.2d 85, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1311, 16 Media L. Rep. 1408
View Case »
Fuhr v. School Dist. of City of Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753, 93 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 769, 186 Ed. Law Rep. 664, 2004 Fed.App. 0084P
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

IN THE MATTER OF DEBBRA K. BEACH, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. LOUIS J. JACKSON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT., nan

Facts

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court in Chautauqua County. The law guardian filed a motion for an extension of time to submit his brief. The motion was supported by an affidavit from Richard L. Sotir, Jr., Esq. The court considered the motion and the supporting documents before making a decision.

the law guardian having moved for an extension of time within which to file and serve his brief

Issue

Whether the law guardian should be granted an extension of time to file and serve his brief.

the motion is granted on condition that the law guardian submit ten copies of his brief to the Court

Rule

The court has the discretion to grant extensions of time for filing briefs, provided that the requesting party submits the necessary documentation and adheres to the court's procedural requirements.

the court has the discretion to grant extensions of time for filing briefs

Analysis

In this case, the law guardian's request for an extension was evaluated based on the affidavit submitted and the procedural compliance with the court's requirements. The court found that the law guardian had sufficiently justified the need for additional time and had followed the proper procedure for requesting the extension.

due deliberation having been had thereon

Conclusion

The court granted the law guardian's motion for an extension of time to file his brief, contingent upon the submission of ten copies of the brief and proof of service by the specified deadline.

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted on condition that the law guardian submit ten copies of his brief to the Court

Who won?

The law guardian prevailed in this motion as the court granted his request for an extension of time. The court's decision was based on the law guardian's compliance with procedural requirements and the justification provided in the affidavit, allowing him the necessary time to prepare his brief.

the motion is granted on condition that the law guardian submit ten copies of his brief to the Court

You must be