Maurice A. Goode v. Kenneth Winkler

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 lacked jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), even if the moving party can show good cause
• holding that district court had no authority to consider pro se motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) filed over thirty days after expiration of initial appeal period
• holding that district court had no authority to consider pro se motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) filed over 30 days after expiration of initial appeal period
• “[E]ven assuming that [the moving party] made a showing of good cause for an extension, the untimely motion should not have been entertained.”
• “[E]ven assuming that [the moving party] made a showing of good cause for an extension, the untimely motion should not have been entertained... .”
• “[E]ven assuming that [the moving party] made a showing of good cause for an extension, the untimely motion should not have been entertained . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).