Furner v. Comm'r

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying claim based on excusable neglect even though the first, second, and fourth factors weighed in favor of claimant (collecting cases)
• concluding that a litigant who failed to take reasonable steps to stay apprised of proceedings in her suit and thus lacked notice of the district court’s decision was not excused from failing timely to file an appeal
• “Affording dispositive weight to [the third] factor accords with our precedents, which have described the reason for the delay as the most important Pioneer factor”
• explaining the factors a court considers when evaluating whether a litigant has established excusable neglect, including “whether [the delay] was within the reasonable control of the [litigant]” (citation omitted)
• reviewing for abuse of discretion decision that found neither “good cause” nor “excusable neglect” under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) existed to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).