*1 905 Mayflower Inc., Transit Co., Aero No. 71-1408. from D. C. et al. Ind.; Korzen. et ux. Hutter jurisdictional supplement Motion to Ct. Ill. in No. 71-1408 granted. statement prescribed by within for failure to docket cases 13 of this Court. Rule Rules dissenting. Mr. Douglas, by appeal, Court, These here on are dismissed cases, I dissent from out of time under Rules. as disposition. Mitchell, Public Workers v. 330 in United We held Rules of this Court determine 75, 84-86, that untimely Only the docketing. filing the effect of jurisdictional. Docketing pre- appeal notice of in case after case by (1), scribed Rule and this strictures of that rule. in its waived the discretion has concerned with dis- has, indeed, been more Up to now it justice may require finding rather of cases posing knotty questions. ways to avoid decision technical Transit three- Mayflower Co. case the Aero 29, 1971, on December its court entered judge appeal on Feb- its notice of Mayflower Aero 60-day within the ruary 14, 1972, its case within (a) did not docket but § 28 U. S. C. juris- it filed its 60-day Instead, period. subsequent on April dictional statement

time. notice

In the Hutter by the Illinois Su- denial following February 17, 1972, reconsider on Jan- motion to of Hutter’s preme Dock- timely under § This was uary 18,1972. within the however, did not occur May 1, 1972, eting late. (1), but was period provided Rule *2 much shorter appeals in of was delay The each Florida, in than which Johnson that occurred that was not an where entertained 596, in Rule provided the time docketed until 56 after (1) at n. expired. S., the In Durham v. United 481 (1971), in which the a for certiorari petition Court considered opinion filed on November of the Court of was and 1969, rehearing on March 5 12, 1970, was denied petition September 1970. Under 26, the petition in applied Rule 22 that the was case, that Only more five months out of time. than Mr. dissented. Blackmun only are guidelines

Our Rules for and we litigants do justice by to the administration of disservice exalting them Baron Parke doubtless would have done. Our experience with our Rules shows in that lateness docket delivery may (which be due to slow of the mail is ing today even 10 years ago), worse was to snowstorms stop up or slow all to traffic, 1 of sickness Regional Teague Customs, Comm’r of was a in a for petition which certiorari filed two was 90-day statutory delay elapsed, after had the the caused by a Justice Black wrote in dissent: snowstorm. imagine might

“It be well to for a what would have moment happened Representative suggested an if some Senator or had amend- (c) ‘clarify’ by stating that a proposed petition ment to 90-day period delay will not be out time ‘when after of solely interruption due caused of mail service to snow- more than members storms.’ It is conceivable that a few of Con- gress this consider such an amendment an insult to Court’s unnecessary intelligence and would feel it to lead this Court elementary It impos- hand on sense. such matters common sible, however, anjr regarded to believe that of them would have reflecting the opposite properly pur- an amendment to effect as yet amendment, ruling pose opposite this peti- a untimely docket- that make counsel, or to accidents other penalize Before we would be on time. normally ing have a we should appeals for docketing late palpable neglect.2 case that shows of Commerce Chamber No. 71-1554. Motion C. Md. Francis pauperis proceed to for leave appellee Wright forma 71-1447 No. with for consolidation granted. Motion denied. Francis, other relief supra] for [Davidson jurisdiction. for want Lloyd Dis- Judicial Third *3 County. Lake trict in and for Salt dismissed, appearing Sup. Ct. Utah adequate ground. state upon below rests trading Church Kisley, as Falls City Center, Falls Health et al. Church v. for want of Appeal from Ct. Va. dismissed question. substantial federal circumstances, precisely the amend- tion of time under engrafts today tacitly

ment onto any pointlessly interpretation harsh adopt “I not such objective congressional no whatsoever one that furthers in this Court opportunity their to seek review denies beyond atmospheric wholly their control. events basis plead- This return the cruel technicalities common-law is a to all ing, then some. . .” . though petitions, many of cases have entertained Smith our Rules: expiration docketed after Carolina, 238; Mississippi, Arnold v. North 373 U. S. States, 32; v. United 773; 375 U. Robison United S. Mazzie States, 303; 198; Fuller States, Nelson v. United 392 U. S. 390 U. S. Long 420; 80; California, Alaska, Banks v. 393 U. S. Parker, 32; Serio v. United S. 305.