Daigle v. Town of Jay

                                ENTRY ORDER

                         SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 89-624

                             APRIL TERM, 1990


Jacques Daigle and Theresa Daigle }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          Orleans Superior Court
                                  }
                                  }
Town of Jay, et al.               }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. S19-87 OsC


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Appellants' motion to strike dismissal of their appeal is granted.
Appellants' motion for an extension of time to file their brief is granted;
brief to be filed on or before June 12, 1990, or the cause is subject to
dismissal without further notice.  V.R.A.P. 42(b).




`







                                     BY THE COURT:


Dissenting:                          _______________________________________
                                     Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

___________________________________  _______________________________________
Louis P. Peck, Associate Justice     Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

                                     _______________________________________
                                     John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
[ ]  Publish
                                     _______________________________________
[ ]  Do Not Publish                  James L. Morse, Associate Justice


     PECK, J., dissenting.  If our rules are to be meaningful they should be
enforced in the absence of the most compelling justification for noncom-
plicance.
     In my view the support tendered by plaintiffs in their motion to strike
dismissal in this case is weak to the point of excuse as distinguished from
reason and should be met by a firm denial.  On the other hand, defendants'
opposition to the motion is persuasive and well supported.  Thus, and as
defendants point out, inter alia, the printed case was not filed until
"April 16, 1990, four days after . . . entry of dismissal." (Emphasis
added.) Further, and again as defendants note, the transcript consists of
only thirty-six pages; this is surely minimal to the extent that plaintiffs'
claim of insufficient time for review borders on the absurd.  Finally,
plaintiffs offer no reason, or even an excuse, for not seeking an extension
of time under V.R.A.P. 26(b), if they felt unable to comply with filing
deadlines.
     Granting motions to strike under circumstances similar to this case can
only encourage indifference to the rules and an unfortunate lack of proper
diligence, all with confidence that such practices may be indulged with
impunity.


                                       ___________________________________
                                       Louis P. Peck, Associate Justice