28 U.S.C. § 1961 Construction

25 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd.
  702 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 61×
  Interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is allowed from the date of the original jury verdict when a judgment n.o.v. is reversed and the verdict is reinstated, and the rate is determined by the state law in effect at the time of the original judgment entry.
• City OF Chicago v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  753 F.2d 606· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-25 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge did not exceed his authority in awarding prejudgment interest on a backpay award under CETA, as such interest is an inherent component of the 'make whole' remedy.
• Bricklayers' Pension Tr. Fund v. Danilo Taiariol
  671 F.2d 988· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 does not preclude an award of prejudgment interest in cases where jurisdiction is based on a federal question, and such interest may be awarded under the LMRA and ERISA if it furthers congressional purposes.
• Litton Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  746 F.2d 168· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 29×
  The 1982 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, changing the post-judgment interest rate calculation, should not be applied retroactively to judgments entered before its effective date, even if pending on direct appeal.
• Holly v. Chasen
  639 F.2d 795· D.C. Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 22×
  28 U.S.C. § 1961 does not authorize the taxation of interest upon a judgment against the United States for attorneys' fees, as sovereign immunity requires an express waiver.
• Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  987 F.2d 1017· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should not reach the issue of the appropriate scope of review for ERISA plan administrator decisions when plans do not vest discretionary powers.
• Devex Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  749 F.2d 1020· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 16×
  The court should reverse the district court's holding that Devex is not entitled to collect interest on delinquent postjudgment and prejudgment interest payments.
• United States v. Hannon
  728 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a second judgment may enter to include interest accrued on the first judgment, particularly when renewing a judgment lien.
• Buck v. Burton
  768 F.2d 285· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 12×
  Post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 should accrue from the date of the original jury verdict when a judgment n.o.v. is reversed.
• Hooks v. Wash. Sheraton Corp.
  642 F.2d 614· D.C. Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 12×
  Interest does not accrue on a judgment entered by the clerk when third-party claims remain pending and the court has not made an express Rule 54(b) determination of finality.
• Marshall v. Perez-Arzuaga
  866 F.2d 521· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 10×
  Post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 accrues from the date of the district court's original judgment entry, not from the date post-judgment motions are denied.
• Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez
  922 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 9×
  Postjudgment interest accrues from the date of the judgment entered after a retrial ordered due to insufficient evidence, not from the date of the original vacated judgment.
• United States v. Bank OF Celina
  823 F.2d 911· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 6×
  Post-judgment interest on tax liabilities should be calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, not 26 U.S.C. § 6621, and accrues from the original judgment date until the funds are deposited into the Treasury account.
• In re Resyn Corp. Resyn Corp. v. United States
  945 F.2d 1279· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the IRS's eighth amended proof of claim did not satisfy the notice and demand requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6303(a), but the IRS is entitled to post-judgment interest from the date of the bankruptcy court's judgment.
• Clifford v. M/V Islander and Woods Hole
  882 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 4×
  Post-judgment interest should be calculated from the date of the initial judgment, even if that judgment was later vacated and re-entered, as long as liability and damages were established.
• Blevins v. United States
  769 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Public Vessels Act and Suits in Admiralty Act govern the rate of postjudgment interest for claims against the United States, not the general rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and that disfigurement damages were properly included in the pain and suffering award
• Transco Leasing Corp. v. United States
  992 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 2×
  Awards of postjudgment interest against the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 are subject to the limitations of 31 U.S.C. § 1304(b)(1)(A).
• Magee v. United States Lines, Inc.
  976 F.2d 821· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should be awarded on the maritime claim when both maritime and Jones Act claims result in a single, unapportioned damages award, and that postjudgment interest runs from the actual date of judgment entry.
• Rimmel v. Mercantile Tr. Co. Nat'l Ass'n
  774 F.2d 279· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Mercantile was entitled to interest on funds held by the Receiver until actual payment, as per the settlement agreement's intent and circumstances. However, interest on HUD's principal was limited by the contract and statutory limitations on interest against t
• Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-08-31
  The court held that the interest rate for Title III damages is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield from the date of confiscation to the date the action was brought, interest is simple, and the trebling provision applies to the certified claim plus interest.
• BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. v. Youssef
  296 F. Supp. 2d 1351· M.D. Fla.· 2004-01-07
  The court held that a party seeking contractual judgment interest must plead it, and absent such pleading, the statutory rate applies.
• Wheeler v. John Deere Co.
  986 F.2d 413· 10th Cir.· 1993-02-22
  Postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 accrues on an award of costs from the date the costs are quantified, not from the date of the initial judgment awarding costs generally.
• Forest Sales Corp. v. Bedingfield
  881 F.2d 111· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-31
  In diversity actions, postjudgment interest is governed by the federal rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and denial of attorney's fees for litigating postjudgment interest is not an abuse of discretion.
• Disney v. Pritzker
  411 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-03
  The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the money judgment awarded, regardless of the method defendants used to satisfy the judgment.