Wolfsohn v. Hankin

Background

An executor of an estate (Wolsohn, executrix) and an individual named Hankin were involved in a federal-court dispute that reached the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The executor asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s ruling. The Supreme Court granted review and issued a per curiam order reversing the appeals court’s judgment, citing two earlier cases, Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers and Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Reasoning

The per curiam order is brief: the Court granted the petition for review and reversed the lower-court judgment. The short order references Harris and Thompson as supporting authority but does not include a full, detailed majority opinion in the text provided. A separate dissenting opinion argues that the Court has applied Harris too broadly and that doing so creates confusion about rules that set strict deadlines for post-judgment motions.

Real world impact

For these parties, the reversal changes the outcome in favor of the estate’s executor. More broadly, the opinion and the dissent put a spotlight on whether trial judges may effectively extend time limits for motions after judgment. Lawyers, litigants, and trial judges who handle post-judgment motions will find this issue highlighted and may face uncertainty about deadline rules until the matter is further clarified.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White, dissented. He warned that Harris should be confined to narrow facts and criticized any approach that allows trial judges to grant extensions contrary to Rules 52(b), 59(b) and (e), and Rule 6(b).