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

jurisdictionappealhearingwill

jurisdictionappealhearing

Related Cases

Union National Bank of Wichita, Kansas v. Lamb, 336 U.S. 901, 69 S.Ct. 491 (Mem)

Facts

The case revolves around the jurisdiction of the court concerning an application for appeal. The specific details of the underlying case are not provided, but the focus is on whether the application was submitted within the required timeframe.

The case revolves around the jurisdiction of the court concerning an application for appeal.

Issue

Was the application for appeal timely filed?

Counsel are requested to discuss on briefs and oral argument the question whether the application for appeal was timely.

Rule

The court will consider the jurisdictional question of the timeliness of the application for appeal during the hearing on the merits.

Further consideration of the question of the jurisdiction of this Court in this case is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.

Analysis

The court has determined that it will not make a ruling on the jurisdictional issue at this time. Instead, it will allow for further discussion and argument regarding the timeliness of the appeal during the upcoming hearing.

Counsel are requested to discuss on briefs and oral argument the question whether the application for appeal was timely.

Conclusion

The court has postponed further consideration of the jurisdictional question until the merits of the case are heard.

Further consideration of the question of the jurisdiction of this Court in this case is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.

Who won?

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1, 75 S.Ct. 553, 99 L.Ed. 773, 3 V.I. 701

China Trade and Development Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33, 1988 A.M.C. 880

Jogi v. Voges, 480 F.3d 822

Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65, 23 L.R.A.N.S. 924, 17 Am.Ann.Cas. 853

Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp., 274 Wis.2d 500, 2004 WI App 118, 685 N.W.2d 373