Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure 4(A)(4)

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

• Castle v. Sangamo Weston, Inc.
  837 F.2d 1550· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 118×
  The court held that there was sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts for the appellants, making the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict inappropriate, and that the district court's conditional rulings on damages and benefits were advisory.
• Obin v. Dist. NO. 9 OF THE Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  651 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 111×
  A motion for attorney's fees is a collateral and independent claim, not governed by the ten-day limit of Rule 59(e), and district courts retain jurisdiction to award fees after judgment on the merits.
• Croker v. The Boeing Co. (Vertol Division) & Local No. 1069 of Int'l Union
  662 F.2d 975· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 108×
  The dissenting opinion argues that a plaintiff relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 should be able to establish a prima facie case through a showing of racially disparate impact, not solely direct evidence of discriminatory purpose.
• Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.
  690 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the defendants' protests to the ICC were not immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because they constituted a sham exception, and that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Importers, Inc.
  740 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 81×
  The court held that Midwest's motion to dismiss Gulf Coast's appeal was frivolous due to a severance order, and that PAX's appeal was timely because the denial of its Rule 60(b) motion was an appealable order. The court affirmed the jury's finding that Gulf Coast breached its con
• Cape MAY Greene, Inc. v. Warren
  698 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the EPA acted arbitrarily in imposing a sewer hookup restriction on floodplain development that defied state and local land use regulations, as Congress has encouraged state and local regulation of coastal areas.
• Alvera M. Aldabe v. Aldabe
  616 F.2d 1089· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 79×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's complaint alleging conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that judicial immunity barred claims against judges.
• Sutliff v. Donovan Cos., Inc.
  727 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the complaint adequately stated a claim under RICO, but not under the antitrust laws, and that the district court erred in dismissing the RICO claim and denying reconsideration.
• Tose v. First Pa. Bank, N.A.
  648 F.2d 879· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-30 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment and directed verdicts, finding no error in the disposition of antitrust and other claims, nor in the handling of contractual counterclaims.
• Dougherty v. Lehman
  711 F.2d 555· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 71×
  A notice of appeal filed while a motion for reconsideration is pending is a nullity, and the government's position is substantially justified if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
• Textile Banking Co., Inc. v. Rentschler
  657 F.2d 844· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the appeal of the default judgment order was untimely, but affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion because the district court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.
• Hays v. Sony Corp. OF Am.
  847 F.2d 412· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 68×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendants, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the nature and scope of an easement claimed by the plaintiffs.
• Myles Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 64×
  Notices of appeal filed before the district court's final judgment on prejudgment interest are ineffective. An appeal from a nonfinal order taxing costs is also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Inryco, Inc. v. Metro. Eng'g Co., Inc.
  708 F.2d 1225· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the defendants' conduct, including their counsel's repeated failures to appear, respond to discovery, and comply with court orders, constituted inexcusable neglect, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the de
• Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Props., Inc.
  780 F.2d 751· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that BMC's appeal on the merits was untimely because its notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the district court's denial of its post-judgment motions, which constituted a final appealable order. The court reversed and remanded the attorney fee aw
• Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  710 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the attorneys received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements for the imposition of fines for violating local rules.
• Bailey v. Sharp
  782 F.2d 1366· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should issue to reinstate the jury's judgment because the defendant's motion for a new trial was untimely and the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant it.
• Birl v. Estelle
  660 F.2d 592· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 54×
  A pro se litigant's failure to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit, without a showing of excusable neglect, deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco
  556 F.2d 665· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment, holding that the judgment was not void and that the nunc pro tunc date issue did not warrant vacatur.
• Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.
  639 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a party's control over another's securities and unfettered ability to use the proceeds for their own benefit constitutes 'profit realized by him' under § 16(b), affirming liability. However, the court reversed and remanded on the issue of the statute of limita
• United States v. O'Neil
  709 F.2d 361· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the government's appeal of the initial judgments was untimely because the district court's severance of counterclaims created final, appealable orders. The denial of Rule 60(b) motions was affirmed as they cannot substitute for a timely appeal.
• Gribble v. Harris
  625 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 50×
  An untimely motion for a new trial does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if not filed within the original sixty-day period.
• Smith v. Jackson Tool & DIE, Inc.
  426 F.2d 5· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-13 ·cited 49×
  The court held that vacating a judgment to allow a party to file a timely appeal, under Rule 60(b), was not reversible error when done to promote substantial justice and avoid prejudice, despite the motion being filed after the initial appeal period.
• McKNIGHT v. United States Steel Corp.
  726 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to correct alleged errors of law made by the district court in the underlying judgment, and that a change in the law after judgment does not, by itself, justify relief under Rule 60(b).
• Hanson v. Town OF Flower Mound
  679 F.2d 497· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 48×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final decision even if no separate judgment document was entered, provided the appellee does not object. The court also held that claims regarding the republican form of government and an arrest without probable cau
• Earnest Bach and Robert Pryor v. Coughlin
  508 F.2d 303· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a prisoner's parole moots his prospective claims, and that prison postage regulations are a reasonable balance of prisoner rights and institutional costs, thus not denying access to courts.
• Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  724 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 47×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a final order if the court's order does not explicitly state that no amendment is possible, and thus the appeal of the denial of leave to amend is timely. The court also hel
• Williams v. Collins
  728 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 46×
  Orders denying absolute immunity are automatically appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and federal officials are absolutely immune from common law tort liability for actions within the scope of their authority.
• Textor v. Bd. OF Regents OF N. Ill. Univ.
  711 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint and that the attorneys were denied a fair hearing on the award of attorney's fees.
• Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd.
  700 F.2d 1202· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to file timely objections to the magistrate's report did not waive their right to appeal, but the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice due to wilful and repeated failure to comply with d
• Calhoun v. United States
  647 F.2d 6· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appeal was timely because the notice of appeal was filed after the announcement of the decision denying the post-judgment motion, even if not formally entered, and that the district court's intent for the order to be final was clear.
• Anne Needham v. White Labs., Inc.
  639 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 46×
  The court should dismiss the appeal as untimely because the motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for filing an appeal.
• The SEA Ranch Ass'n v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions
  537 F.2d 1058· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that abstention was proper for claims of project-wide exemption under the California Coastal Zone Act, but individual parcel exemption claims lacked a case or controversy and should have been dismissed.
• Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters., Inc. v. Smithsonian Inst.
  500 F.2d 808· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-26 ·cited 46×
  A trial court may vacate and re-enter a judgment under Rule 60(b) to allow a timely appeal when neither party had actual notice of the judgment's entry, the winning party is not prejudiced, and the losing party moves promptly after learning of the judgment.
• Delvina E. Lorenzen v. Emps. Ret. Plan OF THE Sperry & Hutchinson Co., Inc.
  896 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 45×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a Rule 59 motion is nullified and a new notice must be filed.
• Airline Pilots IN the Serv. OF Executive Airlines, Inc. v. Executive Airlines, Inc.
  569 F.2d 1174· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 43×
  A clerical error by an attorney's staff in calendaring an appeal deadline does not constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a).
• NeSMITH v. Fulton
  615 F.2d 196· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the appeal was timely because the Adjutant General, a defendant, qualifies as a federal agency, and that the plaintiff's claim regarding his civilian technician dismissal is not subject to judicial review due to the internal military affairs doctrine, while hi
• Selph v. Council OF the City OF LOS Angeles
  593 F.2d 881· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 4(a), F.R.A.P., and the district court improperly granted an untimely extension.
• In re the Est. of Butler's Tire & Battery Co., Inc. v. Ferrous Fin. Servs.
  592 F.2d 1028· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in granting an extension for filing the notice of appeal, as the request for extension was not timely and did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
• Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher
  807 F.2d 345· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that injured parties have independent standing in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer, and their rights are not merely derivative of the insured's rights, especially when the insurer initiated the action.
• Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
  850 F.2d 641· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 40×
  A premature notice of appeal is effective if a subsequent Rule 54(b) certification is obtained or a final adjudication occurs before the court considers the appeal.
• IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund & Lloyd J. Hayes v. Barker & Williamson, Inc.
  788 F.2d 118· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that notice to one member of a controlled group constitutes constructive notice to all members, and that the six-month ownership requirement of 26 U.S.C. § 1563(b) does not apply in the ERISA context for determining controlled group status.
• Shayne Degraw Martin v. R. E. Campbell, M.D.
  692 F.2d 112· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant failed to file a new notice of appeal after the district court granted a motion for a new trial.
• Rayford v. Pryor, Jr.
  769 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appeal from the dismissal was untimely and that the denial of the motion to retain, treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, was not an abuse of discretion due to untimeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
• Harcon Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.
  746 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-12 ·cited 38×
  A timely motion to amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) nullifies any previously filed notice of appeal, requiring a new notice of appeal to be filed after the motion is decided to confer appellate jurisdiction. The court lacks jurisdiction if no new notice is filed.
• Hudak v. Curators OF the Univ. OF Mo.
  586 F.2d 105· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel to the plaintiff.
• Mizell v. The Attorney Gen. OF the State OF NEW York & ano.
  586 F.2d 942· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that jeopardy attached when the jury was sworn, and the discharge of the jury without manifest necessity violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, since the petitioner was released from custody, the relief granted below was vacated and remanded for consideratio
• J.O. and P.O. v. Alton Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 11
  909 F.2d 267· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 37×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review both the dismissal of federal claims and the remand of pendent state claims, and that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint.
• Livernois v. Med. Disposables, Inc.
  837 F.2d 1018· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 36×
  A motion for reconsideration, if seeking to alter or amend a judgment, tolls the time for filing an appeal, and an at-will employee can recover accrued benefits under an oral contract.
• Sandidge v. Salen Offshore Drilling Co.
  764 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire rulings or jury instructions regarding deposition weight and aggravation of injuries, affirming the judgment.