Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Will Key Jefferson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John M. Asplund et al., Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 467 F.2d 199
Sept. 26, 1972
Will Key Jefferson, in pro. per.
Richard A. Helm (argued), of Burr, Pease & Kurtz, Richard W. Garrett, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), John E. Havelock, Atty. Gen., Ely, Guess & Rudd, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants-appellees.
Before MERRILL, DUNIWAY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from dismissal of appellant's civil rights action. Appellant makes three assignments of error, all of which we find to be without merit.
1. Appellant asserts that the defendants waived their motion for summary judgment by filing and serving their answer subsequent to the filing of their motion for summary judgment. This we reject as contrary to the plain language of Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Appellant asserts that he did not receive the notice prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to hearing on his motion to set aside summary judgment. The record establishes that he received adequate notice.
3. Appellant asserts that the District Court erred in giving effect to local Rule 5, since that rule is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We disagree. The local rule simply provides a method whereby a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may request oral argument. Dredge Corp. v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456, 461-462 (9th Cir. 1964).
Judgment affirmed.