1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 948 F.2d
  5. 948 F.2d 1193 (1991)
 

LONGSTRETH v. CITY OF TULSA, OKL.

No. 91-5067.

948 F.2d 1193 (1991)

Christopher E. LONGSTRETH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, a municipal corporation; Police Officer, David M. Brockman; and Sheriff, Frank Thurman, of the County of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

November 13, 1991.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Christopher E. Longstreth, pro se.

M. Denise Graham, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., for defendants-appellees.

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

This appeal raises two issues: First, should a motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal be considered a substantial equivalent of a notice of appeal? Second, should a motion to enlarge the time in which to file a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 be considered a substantial equivalent of a Rule 59 motion? We answer both of these questions in the negative.1

FACTS...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases