Glenford Ragguette v. Premier Wines & Spirits

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an attorney’s busy caseload does not generally excuse the failure to meet a Court deadline
• concluding thirty-day limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) is jurisdictional because it originates in 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (a)
• noting that a court should consider whether the reason for the delay was within the reasonable control of the movant
• noting that the determination of what constitutes excusable neglect is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission
• finding no excusable neglect where reason for delay “strongly weighs” against finding and “the remaining factors, at best, provide only minimal support for such a finding”
• concluding no excusable neglect based primarily on the reason for the delay factor where counsel’s 29-day delay was caused by poor office practices, 3 Quebec argues that the factors in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).