Gray, et al v. City of Revere, et al
| THOMAS GRAY and MARIE A. GRAY |
| REVERE, MA, BRIAN ARRIGO, Mayor, City of Revere, PAUL CAPIZZI, City Solicitor, BENJAMIN DECHRISTOFORO, Building Inspector, MARK LOCKE, Plumbing Inspector, MICHAEL J. CONLEY, Electrical Inspector, THOMAS G. AMBROSINO, Former Mayor of Revere, LOVENBERG AND ASSOCIATES, PC, BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP, FRANK F. RUSSELL and D'AMBROSIO BROWN, LLP |
| 16-2374 |
| November 17, 2016 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER entered by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge: Mandate issued in this appeal on April 18, 2017. Two prior motions were treated as motions to recall mandate and denied. The present set of motions, construed collectively as a third motion to recall mandate, is also denied. The case is closed, and the clerk is directed not to accept any further filings in in this appeal. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 04/29/2020 02:09 PM]
|
| MOTION requesting a new trial filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray. Certificate of service was not included. [16-2374]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (GRC) [Entered: 04/01/2020 03:31 PM] |
| DOCKET sheet sent to appellant. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 08/30/2017 03:32 PM] |
| LETTER sent to Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray regarding request for a copy of the docket sheet. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 08/30/2017 03:31 PM] |
| LETTER filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray requesting a copy of the docket sheet. Certificate of service was not included. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 08/29/2017 04:14 PM] |
|
ORDER entered by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge: Appellants' second "motion on judgment," treated as a motion to recall mandate, is denied. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 08/08/2017 11:42 AM]
|
| CORRECTED ORDER* entered by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge: Appellants' second "motion on judgment," treated as a motion to recall mandate, is denied. *Corrected Order issued to correct date of the order. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 08/08/2017 12:59 PM] |
| SECOND motion on Judgment filed by Appellant Marie A. Gray to order [ # 6102193-2 ]. Certificate of service was not included. [16-2374]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (GRC) [Entered: 07/17/2017 11:13 AM] |
|
ORDER entered by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge: Appellants' "motion on judgment," treated as a motion to recall mandate, is denied. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 06/27/2017 03:00 PM]
|
| LETTER filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray regarding judgment and mandate. Certificate of service was not dated. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 05/09/2017 03:43 PM] |
| LETTER sent to Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray regarding judgment. Docket sheet, Order [ # 6082934-2 ], and mandate [ # 6084356-2 ] enclosed. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 04/25/2017 03:47 PM] |
| LETTER regarding judgment filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 04/24/2017 12:14 PM] |
| MANDATE issued. [16-2374] (CC) [Entered: 04/18/2017 08:52 AM] |
|
ORDER entered by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge: Appellants have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court construes as a petition for panel rehearing of the court's judgment of March 16, 2017, dismissing this appeal as untimely. The petition for rehearing is denied. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 04/10/2017 04:42 PM]
|
| MOTION to reconsider judgment case terminated [ # 6076471-2 ] filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray. Certificate of service dated 03/27/2017. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 03/30/2017 12:33 PM] |
| JUDGMENT entered by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge. Dismissed. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 03/16/2017 12:00 PM] |
| CASE submitted. Panel: Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; David J. Barron, Appellate Judge. [16-2374] (SBT) [Entered: 04/10/2017 03:26 PM] |
| RESPONSE filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray to order to show cause regarding untimely appeal [ # 6051819-2 ]. Certificate of service was not dated. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 01/05/2017 09:29 AM] |
|
ORDER to Show Cause entered directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Show cause response due 12/16/2016. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 12/02/2016 02:19 PM]
|
| NOTICE issued. After 12/16/2016, the following attorneys will no longer receive notice of court issued documents in this case unless they register for an appellate ECF account: Daniel E. Doherty for Revere, MA, Brian Arrigo, Paul Capizzi, Benjamin DeChristoford, Mark Locke, Michael J. Conley and Thomas G. Ambrosino. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 12/02/2016 02:34 PM] |
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #37) filed by Appellants Marie A. Gray and Thomas Gray. PLEASE NOTE: The December 1, 2016 amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure make significant changes to appellate practice. The full text of the amendments, as well as a summary of major rule changes, is available # here . The changes are effective December 1, 2016. [16-2374] (GRC) [Entered: 11/17/2016 01:52 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
