Frank K. Hartle, Maxine E. Hartle and Dawn M. Janes,plaintiffs-appellants, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 965 F.2d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore PLAGER, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
PLAGER, Circuit Judge.
The court's January 15, 1992 stay order is lifted and the court now considers the United States' motion to dismiss the appeal of Frank K. Hartle et al. and Hartle's opposition thereto.
On May 29, 1991, the Claims Court denied Hartle's post-judgment motion. Sixty-one days later, on July 30, 1991, Hartle filed a notice of appeal.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2107 and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4), Hartle was required to file his notice of appeal within 60 days after the Claims Court ruled on his post-judgment motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Sofarelli Associates, Inc. United States, 716 F.2d 1395, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The United States' motion to dismiss is granted.*
The court's dismissal of this appeal does not affect the appeal, if any, of the Claims Court's recent order denying Hartle's 60(b) motion
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
