Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The conception of excusable neglect in Pioneer encompasses 'where appropriate, . . . late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party's control.' Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388. The court acknowledged an observation in Thompson that 'a mere concession of palpable oversight or administrative failure generally has been held to fall short of the necessary showing' for excusable neglect. Thompson, 76 F.3d at 534 (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re O.P.M. Leasing Serv., Inc., 769 F.2d 911, 917 (2d Cir. 1985)). '`Excusable neglect' is not easily demonstrated, nor was it intended to be.' Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996). Indeed, 'a district court should find excusable neglect only in the extraordinary cases where injustice would otherwise result.' Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). These limiting principles confine the circumstances under which a district court may properly find excusable neglect, particularly in instances of mere 'inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness.' Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388. Neglect is precisely the sort of 'run-of-the-mill inattentiveness by counsel' that courts have consistently declined to excuse in the past. See, e.g., ...

Register or login to access full content