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

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

• Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp.
  885 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds, the dismissal should be without prejudice and conditioned on the defendant submitting to Saudi Arabian jurisdiction.
• Vareka Invs., N.V. v. Am. Inv. Props., Inc.
  724 F.2d 907· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and correctly granted summary judgment on liability and awarded damages, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.
  680 F.2d 927· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the disclosure statement's description of after-acquired property did not violate the Truth in Lending Act or Regulation Z, and that pre-bankruptcy debts cannot be set off against statutory damages.
• Barksdale v. Blackburn
  647 F.2d 630· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an untimely notice of appeal cannot be considered unless a motion for relief from the delay is filed within the time prescribed by the rules.
• Wallace v. Commander George C. Chappell
  637 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-02 ·cited 22×
  The en banc court's decision to overrule Michaels v. Chappell and find the appeal timely was unnecessary and misapplied FRAP 4(a).
• Fase v. Seafarers Welfare AND Pension Plan
  574 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Plan's tardy filing of its notice of appeal was not due to excusable neglect, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• United States v. Tindle
  522 F.2d 689· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 22×
  Filing a DeCoster motion for a new trial constitutes 'special circumstances' permitting consideration of a § 2255 motion during a direct appeal, making the subsequent notice of appeal timely.
• Girardeau A. Spann v. Colonial Vill., Inc.
  899 F.2d 24· D.C. Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the organizational plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act and that their appeal was timely filed. The court also found that personal jurisdiction over MLDC was properly established through service on its subsidiary.
• Lucas v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  729 F.2d 1300· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 21×
  A motion concerning only costs, even if mislabeled as a Rule 59 motion, does not render a prior notice of appeal ineffective under F.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).
• Stern v. Shouldice
  706 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed. It affirmed the award of nominal damages, costs, and attorney's fees but reversed the award of back pay and prejudgment interest against the individual defendants.
• Prescott H. Rathborne v. Rathborne
  683 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 21×
  A shareholder who did not directly purchase or sell securities in a corporate reorganization, and whose proportionate interest in the underlying assets did not fundamentally change, lacks standing to bring a federal securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5.
• Clark Jerome McMILLAN v. Barksdale
  823 F.2d 981· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's motion for a certificate of probable cause can serve as a timely notice of appeal, and that the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing when state court findings were not impeached.
• Vernoy D. Bolling v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  823 F.2d 165· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the petition for review was filed untimely, as the motion for reconsideration was also untimely and therefore did not toll the filing deadline.
• Marrical v. The Detroit News, Inc.
  805 F.2d 169· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-11 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge believes Michigan law grants prosecutors immunity from suit for official acts, contrary to the majority's decision to dismiss the appeal.
• McGOLDRICK OIL Co. v. Campbell
  793 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal of Rule 11 sanctions against the attorney, but affirmed the summary judgment and award of attorney's fees against the client, finding the appeal frivolous.
• United States v. 1982 Sanger 24' Spectra Boat
  738 F.2d 1043· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking the claimants' answers and claims without notice, and that the claimants should be permitted to amend their claims to allege a property interest sufficient for standing.
• United States v. Rumell
  642 F.2d 213· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a notice of appeal from a conviction does not automatically cover a subsequent motion to vacate the conviction, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence or in denying motions for acquittal.
• Spinar v. S.D. Bd. OF Regents
  796 F.2d 1060· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 19×
  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its original judgment and enter a new one after the time for appeal had expired.
• Wielgos v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
  892 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that forward-looking statements regarding capital expenditures are protected by the Rule 175 safe harbor unless shown to be made without a reasonable basis or in bad faith, and that the probability of an administrative license denial was not material information re
• Mabra Huff v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  799 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the original dismissal order due to an untimely notice of appeal, but it had jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for reconsideration and affirmed that denial.
• Charles L. Feather t/a Feather Trucking v. Patterson
  711 F.2d 530· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of liability under the NLRA and its exemption from antitrust liability, but remanded for further findings on causation for damages and agency for one plaintiff.
• French v. Estelle
  696 F.2d 318· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the failure to file a cross-appeal does not preclude review of a constitutional claim when affirming a grant of habeas corpus relief, especially when the claim is clear and necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
• Autoskill Inc. v. Nat'l Educ. Support Sys., Inc.
  994 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed within the extended period provided by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b)(2) and that the appeal was not voided by the automatic bankruptcy stay due to Bankruptcy Rule 6009. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Auto
• Branum v. Clark
  927 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment because the plaintiff was prejudiced by the advancement of the hearing date without adequate notice and the court failed to consider this prejudice.
• Cange v. Stotler & Co.
  913 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Stotler was estopped from asserting the contractual limitations defense due to its agent's conduct and failure to provide the customer agreement, and that the attorney's fees award was proper under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The cross-appeal for punitive
• Offshore Prod. Contractors, Inc. v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co.
  910 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 16×
  An insurance broker's failure to procure requested insurance, coupled with misrepresentations about coverage and failure to notify the client of exclusions, constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the client later fails to pay the premium or the insurer wrongfully denies
• Eleby v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc.
  795 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, but affirmed the denial because the district court did not plainly abuse its discretion.
• Trohimovich v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  776 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 16×
  The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. Sanctions are imposed due to the appellants' history of frivolous appeals.
• N. Am. Telecomms. Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  772 F.2d 1282· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FCC's exceptions to the separate-subsidiary rule, including joint billing, single-line phone installation, and dial-tone referral, were permissible exercises of the Commission's discretion, despite potential competitive disadvantages for independent provid
• In re Lovitt v. Appleatchee Riders Ass'n
  757 F.2d 1035· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that unassumed unexpired leases are deemed rejected by operation of law, rendering a subsequent trustee sale of those leases a nullity for which the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.
• Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  728 F.2d 1006· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a statement made in 1977 constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, but a statement made in 1972 did not, due to lack of justifiable reliance.
• Curacao Drydock Co. v. The M/V Akritas
  710 F.2d 204· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The notice of appeal in an admiralty case must be filed within the time limits set by Fed.R.App.P. 4, like all other civil cases, and the court lacks authority to extend this deadline.
• Herrington v. The Cnty. OF Sonoma
  706 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order was a final decision, the notice of appeal was timely, and the district court abused its discretion in staying the federal proceedings.
• Shephard Arnold Meggett v. Louie L. Wainwright
  642 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal must be considered under the prior rule regarding timely notice of appeal due to the filing date.
• Butler v. Stover Bros. Trucking Co.
  546 F.2d 544· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the clerk's entry of judgment was void because it was made contrary to the court's implied intent to delay entry pending post-trial motions, making the defendants' notice of appeal timely. The court also held that collateral estoppel was improperly applied bec
• Hardy Jackson v. Sheriff Bill Decker
  451 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
• Willhauck v. Halpin
  953 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissals and verdicts, finding no reversible error in the procedural history or the substantive rulings regarding the plaintiffs' civil rights claims.
• Averhart v. Arrendondo
  773 F.2d 919· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 15×
  A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) nullifies a previously filed notice of appeal, requiring a new notice to be filed after the district court rules on the motion.
• Gibbs v. Maxwell House
  738 F.2d 1153· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's second motion for relief under Rule 60(b) because the payment of sanctions did not satisfy the dismissal judgment and the judgment was not prospective.
• Splitt v. The Deltona Corp.
  662 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that punitive damages are not recoverable for a breach of contract, even if flagrant, unless the breach also constitutes an independent tort recognized under Florida law.
• United States v. Jackson
  950 F.2d 633· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-18 ·cited 14×
  A criminal defendant's notice of appeal filed after a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is not premature if the motion tolls the time for appeal, and the notice is held in abeyance until the motion is decided.
• Wages v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  915 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's post-judgment order, finding that while the dismissal of IRS claims on the merits was erroneous, the dismissal of claims against individual defendants was not, and the imposition of sanctions was proper.
• Thomassen v. United States
  835 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the complaint prematurely, it did not deprive the plaintiff of due process. However, the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the government, and thus the contempt order based on those fees is re
• RR Vill. Ass'n, Inc. v. Denver Sewer Corp. & Town of Roxbury (N.Y.)
  826 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that the court erred by not notifying the New York Attorney General of the constitutional challenge to N.Y.Transp.Corp.L. § 121 and by failing to consider abstention under state law.
• Durham v. Kelly
  810 F.2d 1500· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a motion to amend a judgment to award costs does not fall under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), thus not rendering a prior notice of appeal ineffective. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact reg
• Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel
  799 F.2d 1409· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alaska Limestone's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
• Minoru Yasui v. United States
  772 F.2d 1496· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-04 ·cited 14×
  The majority erred in applying the time limit for criminal appeals to appeals from denial of a writ of error coram nobis.
• In re THE Brickyard v. The Walker-Pinkston Cos., Inc.
  735 F.2d 1154· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 14×
  A notice of appeal filed before a judgment or order is entered, but after it is announced, is valid under Bankruptcy Rule 802, similar to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2).
• Abdul Shah v. T.D. Hutto
  704 F.2d 717· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the 1979 amendment to Rule 4(a)(5) requires a formal motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and an untimely notice of appeal cannot be treated as such a motion.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  684 F.2d 691· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 14×
  A party's "Objections to Proposed Order" that only seek to alter the form of a judgment, rather than its substantive correctness, do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).