Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure 10(E)

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

• United States v. Mori
  444 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-04 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the defendant was convicted of a single conspiracy, not two separate ones, and therefore cumulative punishment was impermissible.
• Zuniga v. Amfac Foods, Inc.
  580 F.2d 380· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is comparable to Colorado contract and tort actions, thus governed by the six-year statute of limitations under C.R.S.1973 § 13-80-110, making the plaintiff's claim timely.
• United States v. Aart Vanwort
  887 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury's finding of a single conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the absence of an objection to jury selection by a magistrate meant reversal was not required under Gomez v. United States. The court also found no abuse of discretion in
• Powers v. Ala. Dep't OF Educ.
  854 F.2d 1285· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding no discriminatory intent in promotions, but reversed and remanded the disparate impact claim regarding promotions and assignments due to flawed analysis.
• In re S & E Shipping Corp. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  678 F.2d 636· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a shipowner's claims for indemnity and contribution against another party are not necessarily derivative of the injured party's claim against the shipowner, and thus may expose the shipowner to liability beyond the limitation fund if not properly stipulated.
• Daly-Murphy v. Winston
  837 F.2d 348· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-01 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact and correct application of substantive law regarding the APA, Privacy Act, Bivens, and state libel claims.
• Denicola v. G. C. Murphy Co.
  562 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a labor union cannot be held liable for contribution under the Equal Pay Act, as the Act provides a cause of action only against employers. The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding Title VII liability.
• Venable v. T.J. Haislip
  721 F.2d 297· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's motion for rehearing tolled the time to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, and that the district court erred in dismissing the Rule 60(b) motion without considering whether the default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdictio
• Townsend v. Columbia Operations
  667 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in treating the motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment and granting summary judgment for the defendants, as the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Hoover v. Blue Cross AND Blue Shield OF Alabama
  855 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' interpretation of the co-payment provision was reasonable and entitled them to summary judgment, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• United States v. Selva
  546 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court to attempt to supplement the record with the closing arguments, or to grant a new trial if supplementation is not possible.
• Vreeken v. Special Agent
  718 F.2d 343· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' appeal was timely filed because their motion to amend the judgment tolled the appeal period, and that the mail cover did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Zell v. Jacoby-Bender, Inc.
  542 F.2d 34· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-01 ·cited 12×
  A district court's order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration in a breach of contract action is appealable as an interlocutory order granting an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• United States v. Preciado-Cordobas
  923 F.2d 159· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that where closing arguments were not recorded, the case must be remanded for a hearing to supplement the record, rather than immediately reversing.
• Salinger v. Random House, Inc.
  818 F.2d 252· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 10×
  The court granted the motion to supplement the appellate record with a marked exhibit and denied the petition for rehearing.
• In re Cap. Cities/Abc
  913 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of access to sealed documents must be vacated and remanded because Capital Cities was disadvantaged by lack of information and denial of a hearing.
• Belber v. Charles S. Lipson, M.D.
  905 F.2d 549· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit certain medical records due to lack of authentication and hearsay issues, and that other claims were waived by failure to object or make proper motions.
• Savage v. Cache Valley Dairy Ass'n
  737 F.2d 887· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a timely cross-appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, and the court cannot extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• United States v. Garcia
  997 F.2d 1273· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that Garcia's arrest was lawful, but reversed the grant of a § 2255 petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Duskin Claude Becker
  929 F.2d 442· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the use of a jackhammer to search beneath a concrete slab was within the scope and reasonable intensity of a valid search warrant for the premises, and that a late-filed certificate under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 did not divest the court of jurisdiction. The court rev
• United States v. Greenwell
  418 F.2d 845· 4th Cir.· 1969-10-13 ·cited 6×
  The court deferred further consideration of the appeal pending certification from the district judge regarding the security measures used during the trial.
• Sipes v. Gen. Dev. Corp. (In Re Gen. Dev. Corp.)
  177 B.R. 1000· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, holding that the Sipes were not denied due process and that their homesite purchase agreement was an executory contract subject to rejection under the Bankruptcy Code.
• United States v. Camilo Ayala-Rivera
  954 F.2d 1275· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly considered a prior reckless driving conviction for sentencing and that the Speedy Trial Act's indictment deadline does not apply to recaptured escaped prisoners.
• Dickey v. Greene
  729 F.2d 957· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The majority's refusal to address the merits and its remand for further proceedings is improper because the parties' concessions established that the EEOC complaint was considered by the lower court.
• United States v. Brunk
  587 F.2d 910· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a judge's ex parte communication with the jury, even if concerning a discretionary matter like replaying evidence, creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must overcome.
• Lothschuetz v. Carpenter
  898 F.2d 1200· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 3×
• Debi Eyerman v. Mary KAY Cosmetics, Inc.
  967 F.2d 213· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff, an independent contractor, failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claims of handicap discrimination, breach of agency contract, breach of fiduciary duty, implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Jefferson Parish v. M/V Lightning Power
  851 F.2d 1543· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that reliance on a vessel's earnings to fund advances for necessaries does not waive a maritime lien, and affirmed the district court's finding that Eagle Fleet was a special agent entitled to a lien for seaman's wages.
• Morgan v. United States Dep't of Just.
  923 F.2d 195· D.C. Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the mere existence of a court seal is insufficient to justify withholding documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); the seal must be intended to prohibit disclosure, akin to an injunction.
• United States v. McCUSKER
  936 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-12
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the superseding indictment was timely filed, the weight of the blotter paper is relevant for drug quantity for sentencing, the appellate record was sufficient, and the district court could consider acquitted conduct fo