Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

J. L. Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue v. T. U. Sisson

J. L. Enochs, Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue v. T. U. Sisson, 301 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1962)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1962-04-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The question presented by this appeal is whether a summary judgment granted before the expiration of ten days after the time fixed for hearing is a valid judgment. Appellee Sisson filed this action for a refund of taxes for the calendar years 1953 and 1954 under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. After the appellant Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue, had filed his answer, appellee moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavit. The record shows that the motion was served upon the appellant, but the certificate of service is omitted and it is not contended that any time was fixed for the hearing of the motion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed J. L. Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue v. T. U. Sisson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
39 opinions
ENOCHS v. SISSON,301 F.2d 125(5th Cir. 1962)
J.L. ENOCHS, District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellant, v. T.U.
SISSON, Appellee.
No. 18979.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 1962.
Page 126
Robert E. Hauberg, U.S. Atty., E.R. Holems, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Thomas A. Frazier, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz, Carolyn R. Just, Daniel K. Mayers, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

G.E. Estes, Jr., Gulfport, Miss., for appellee.
Before RIVES, CAMERON and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The question presented by this appeal is whether a summary judgment granted before the expiration of ten days after the time fixed for hearing is a valid judgment. Appellee Sisson filed this action for a refund of taxes for the calendar years 1953 and 1954 under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. After the appellant Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue, had filed his answer, appellee moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavit. The record shows that the motion was served upon the appellant, but the certificate of service is omitted and it is not contended that any time was fixed for the hearing of the motion. Some months after the motion was filed the court below granted summary judgment in favor of appellee.

It is provided under Rule56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., that a motion for summary judgment "shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing." No time was ever fixed for the hearing of this motion, and it is undisputed that the trial court did not have any rule fixing such time. See Rule78, F.R.Civ.P. We do not think that the order entered by the court below, in the absence of a notice to the appellant of the time fixed for the hearing, was within its juridiction under the quoted portion of Rule 56. And cf. also Rule6, F.R.Civ.P., and Bowdidge v. Lehman, District Director of Immigration, 6 Cir., 1958,252 F.2d 366.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, vacated and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.Page 130