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

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

• Calculators Haw., Inc. v. Brandt, Inc.
  724 F.2d 1332· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the refusal to sell new equipment or repair parts did not violate the Sherman Act, as there was insufficient evidence of anticompetitive purpose or effect.
• Stevens v. Heard
  674 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a Certificate of Probable Cause, timely received by the clerk but not filed within 30 days, could suffice as a notice of appeal if it clearly evinced intent to appeal, allowing the court to reach the merits. It also held that claims challenging the fact or len
• In re Orbitec Corp. v. Schindler
  520 F.2d 358· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-31 ·cited 36×
  A motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal cannot substitute for the notice of appeal itself, even if the motion alleges excusable neglect.
• United States v. Price
  688 F.2d 204· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion, but clarified that equitable relief, including monetary expenditures for studies, is permissible under RCRA and SDWA.
• Hayes Williams and Arthur Mitchell v. Treen
  671 F.2d 892· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-31 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing damage claims without making factual findings on whether the defendants acted within their discretionary authority. It also held that a deliberate denial of vital medication violates clearly established law, forfeiting im
• Waddie Jusino v. Zayas
  875 F.2d 986· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 32×
  A timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the time for appeal, and a district court's error in assessing timeliness due to a clerk's mistake can be corrected, allowing a subsequent appeal to be valid. Double damages under specific Puerto Rico statutes are barred by Eleventh Amendment immu
• Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge v. Madison Indus., Inc.
  733 F.2d 656· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 32×
  A judgment on the merits is a final, appealable decision even when a request for attorney's fees remains unresolved, as such requests are collateral to the main action.
• Campbell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  726 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellants' notice of appeal was untimely and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Abdul Shah v. T.D. Hutto
  722 F.2d 1167· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the 1979 amendment to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requires a motion for an extension of time to be filed within 30 days of the original deadline, and a bare notice of appeal is insufficient.
• Albers v. Gant
  435 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1970-12-07 ·cited 32×
  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed after the dismissal of a prior timely notice of appeal and the denial of post-trial motions that would extend the appeal period.
• PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp.
  939 F.3d 1205· 11th Cir.· 2019-09-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that Velex and its officers were properly held in civil contempt for violating the injunction and that the award of attorneys' fees was appropriate, affirming the district court's decision.
• Dowling v. City OF Philadelphia
  855 F.2d 136· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 31×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's grant of summary judgment was premature because it failed to rule on a pending motion for a protective order regarding discovery.
• Finch v. City OF Vernon
  845 F.2d 256· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the City of Vernon's motion for reconsideration was a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolled the time for filing appeals, and that jurisdiction was proper over all appeals, including those filed prematurely by pro se litigants.
• Farnese v. Bagnasco
  687 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to vacate the default judgment.
• United States v. Ciro Gargano
  826 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 30×
  A pending motion for reconsideration of a district court's ruling nullifies any notice of appeal filed before the motion is decided, requiring a new notice of appeal after the motion is resolved.
• Schuurman v. The Motor Vessel "Betty K V"
  798 F.2d 442· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-03 ·cited 30×
  An order dismissing a complaint with a stated period for amendment becomes final for appeal purposes upon the expiration of that period, and the time for appeal runs from that date.
• Lyell Theatre Corp. & Martina Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp.
  682 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
• Pettibone v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  666 F.2d 333· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and no formal motion for an extension was made within the prescribed period.
• A. O. Smith Corp. v. Sims Consol. Ltd.
  647 F.2d 118· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 30×
  A subsequent Rule 54(b) certification does not cure a premature notice of appeal filed before the certification; a new notice of appeal must be filed after the certification.
• Butler v. Pearson
  636 F.2d 526· D.C. Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the case under Rule 60(b) constituted an abuse of discretion, reversing the denial and ordering the case reinstated.
• Craig v. Warden Sam P. Garrison
  549 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 30×
  When a pro se litigant's notice of appeal is filed within the extension period, the court must advise the litigant of the requirements for excusable neglect before deeming it untimely.
• Jackson v. Am. Sav. Mortg. Corp. & The Resolution Tr. Corp.
  924 F.2d 195· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 28×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it cannot directly review a state trial court's summary judgment in a case removed to federal court; the district court must first have an opportunity to review and rule on the judgment.
• United States v. Hansen
  795 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 28×
  A notice of appeal filed before the entry of a final judgment, and before the disposition of pending counterclaims, is ineffective and does not confer appellate jurisdiction.
• Pryor v. R.C. Marshall
  711 F.2d 63· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that under the amended Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a), a late notice of appeal cannot serve as a substitute for a timely motion for an extension of time based on excusable neglect.
• Yaretsky v. Blum
  592 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 28×
  A premature notice of appeal filed while a Rule 59(e) motion is pending will be treated as timely if no prejudice to the appellee occurs. Federal regulations require state agencies, not healthcare facilities, to provide notice of transfer or benefit termination.
• The Buckeye Cellulose Corp. v. Braggs Elec. Constr. Co.
  569 F.2d 1036· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-25 ·cited 28×
  A district court may vacate and reenter a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) to allow an appeal when the clerk's failure to provide notice of the judgment entry, combined with other circumstances, justifies such relief.
• Rothman v. United States
  508 F.2d 648· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition, even if styled under § 2255, should be treated as a writ of coram nobis if the petitioner is no longer in custody and alleges fundamental errors of fact.
• Spika v. The Vill. OF Lombard
  763 F.2d 282· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court's grant of relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to revive a lost right to appeal was improper when the sole asserted reason was the failure to receive notice of the judgment's entry, and the appellant demonstrated insufficient diligence.
• Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stone
  743 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 27×
  A district court's stay order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 if it effectively places the appellant out of court due to indefinite delay, even if the state action for which the stay was granted will not resolve the federal claims.
• Jehan Zeb MIR v. Fosburg
  646 F.2d 342· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-22 ·cited 27×
  A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442a, even if the action could not have been originally brought in federal court. Federal executive officers may be entitled to absolute immunity from state-law tort actions.
• Floyd v. Laws
  929 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on qualified immunity was not an abuse of discretion, and that a jury's answer to a verdict question, given in violation of explicit instructions, is surplusage and must be disregarded.
• Barnett v. Petro-Tex Chem. Corp.
  893 F.2d 800· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Broughton plaintiffs' notice of appeal was effective only for Robert H. Broughton, and the Barnett plaintiffs' notice was a nullity. The court reversed summary judgment for the defendants on the contract claims, finding that the sale of the company constit
• Browning v. Navarro
  887 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that res judicata bars Holloway's claim that the state court judgment was fraudulent, as it could have been raised in a prior federal action. The court also found the clean hands doctrine did not provide a basis to vacate the judgment.
• Al-Hakim Allah v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  871 F.2d 887· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's opening brief could be construed as a timely notice of appeal because the district court failed to enter a separate judgment, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's dismissal of the appellant'
• Aurelio Echevarria-Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-Chapel
  849 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal from the default judgment was untimely, but the appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was timely, and that the back pay award was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Ctr. FOR Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  781 F.2d 935· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction without considering transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
• VAN WYK EL Paso Inv., Inc. v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc.
  719 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's notice of appeal was untimely and ineffective because it was filed before the disposition of a Rule 52 motion for reconsideration.
• Offshore Logistics Servs., Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
  639 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the excess insurer was liable for the settlement amount and statutory penalties, but affirmed the refusal to award attorney's fees for the underlying defense due to insufficient proof.
• Bryant v. Elliott
  467 F.2d 1109· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal, though slightly late, should be remanded to allow the petitioner to seek an extension of time based on excusable neglect.
• Shendock v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs. Appeal of Stephen Shendock
  893 F.2d 1458· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-12 ·cited 25×
  The sixty-day filing requirement for petitions for review of Benefits Review Board decisions under 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(c) is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled.
• Rivera v. M/T Fossarina
  840 F.2d 152· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was untimely because the Rule 59(e) motion, which could have tolled the appeal period, was not properly served within the required timeframe. The denial of the Rule 60(b)(2) motion was affirmed.
• Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand
  790 F.2d 1439· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a release agreement, supported by admissions and conduct, barred subsequent claims regarding net worth, even if based on unknown accounting methods, and that the appeal was timely.
• Johnson v. Univ. OF Wisconsin-Milwaukee
  783 F.2d 59· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 25×
  Evidence of a non-discriminatory retaliatory motive is irrelevant to proving that the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for age discrimination.
• Files v. City OF Rockford
  440 F.2d 811· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting leave to file a notice of appeal instanter, as no excusable neglect was demonstrated, and therefore the appeal was untimely and jurisdiction was lacking.
• Meek v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  908 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in its legal analysis of the third Gingles prong by failing to recognize that coalitions can form a legally significant voting bloc and that the county's reliance on existing district lines was misplaced when assessing the potential fo
• Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc.
  891 F.2d 886· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 24×
  A motion for reconsideration of a remittitur order, which significantly alters the judgment, qualifies as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59, thereby tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Limerick v. Greenwald
  749 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding post-judgment motions untimely and the stigmatization claim without merit due to available state procedures. Sanctions were imposed against counsel.
• Miller v. Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec. Coop., Inc.
  653 F.2d 1378· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court properly dismissed the employer to preserve diversity jurisdiction, affirming the jury's allocation of fault.
• United States v. Russell
  578 F.2d 806· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely as to the underlying default judgment because the Rule 60(b) motion did not toll the appeal period, and the appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was meritless.
• McCOWAN v. Sears
  908 F.2d 1099· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 23×
  The court reversed the denial of Dean Witter's motion for a stay pending arbitration, holding that the claims against Dean Witter in McCowan II were referable to arbitration under the parties' agreement. The court also exercised pendent jurisdiction to review Sears' appeal.