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

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

• Dixie Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  631 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-21 ·cited 14×
  A motion to reconsider an amended judgment does not restart the time to appeal if the amended judgment rests on one of the original grounds.
• Echols v. Parker
  909 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 13×
  A motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not subject to the ten-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and does not vitiate a previously filed notice of appeal. However, a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a supplemental attorney's fees
• Vaughter v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  817 F.2d 685· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the pilots' claims accrued in 1965 when Eastern assumed funding of the pension plan, thus barring claims under ERISA and the statute of limitations.
• Greater Houston Chapter OF THE Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Eckels
  755 F.2d 426· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a motion for a new trial is ineffective, and a new notice must be filed after the motion is denied.
• In re Petition of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  904 F.2d 826· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary's regulation defining substance addiction disorders is valid and not a sham to disguise non-acquiescence in circuit law, and that the district court erred in invalidating the regulation and imposing a remedial order.
• In re Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Hampshire
  898 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 12×
  The court dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to file a valid notice of appeal after filing a motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court's order.
• In re Topco, Inc. v. Webb
  894 F.2d 727· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Trustee's appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(a)(1), and that the contract between River Production and the Trustee included the Trustee's motion and its attached exhibits.
• United States v. Cortes
  895 F.2d 1245· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 12×
  A notice of appeal filed in a criminal case before the disposition of a motion for new trial is effective and does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion.
• York v. Tate
  858 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio common law rule requiring circumstantial evidence to be irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of innocence should not be applied by federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings reviewing state criminal convictions. The federal constitutiona
• Alcom Elec. Exch., Inc. v. Burgess
  849 F.2d 964· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a premature notice of appeal filed before the entry of final judgment was effective due to binding Fifth Circuit precedent, and that the limitation of liability clause in the advertising contract was enforceable under Mississippi law.
• Malone v. Avenenti
  850 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's request for an extension of time was untimely and that the district court could not grant an effective extension ex parte without notice to the state.
• Munden v. Ultra-Alaska Assocs.
  849 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 12×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is premature and has no effect, requiring a new notice of appeal after the motion's disposition.
• Shores v. Sklar
  844 F.2d 1485· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-10 ·cited 12×
  The majority erred in denying the motion to dismiss the Shores appeal.
• In re X-Cel, Inc.
  823 F.2d 192· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 12×
  A timely motion for rehearing under Bankruptcy Rule 8015 suspends the finality of the judgment, making an appeal filed while the motion is pending premature.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Campaigner Publ'ns, Inc.
  795 F.2d 226· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the contempt judgments, finding that the appellants' arguments regarding service of process were precluded by prior dismissals and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing in the final contempt appeal.
• Rodriguez v. Banco Central
  790 F.2d 172· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an order deferring class certification pending a test case is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the asserted rights are capable of vindication on appeal from a final judgment.
• Ola Irene Rivers v. Wash. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  770 F.2d 1010· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a subsequent amended judgment effectively terminated the litigation, and the notice of appeal, filed before the amended judgment, is treated as timely.
• Clayton A. Stacey under the Clayton A. Stacey Tr. Agreement dated February 26 v. Charles J. Rogers, Inc.
  756 F.2d 440· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the timely filing of a motion for a new trial by one party in a consolidated action does not toll the time for other parties to file their notice of appeal.
• Myers v. Linwood V. Stephenson
  748 F.2d 202· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to the district court for fact-finding to determine the actual receipt date of the notice of appeal, as the timeliness is unclear and crucial for appellate jurisdiction.
• Hayward v. Britt
  572 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 12×
  A motion for reconsideration, even if treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, does not toll the time for filing an appeal or affect the finality of the original judgment.
• Salazar v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist.
  538 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The district court had jurisdiction to grant a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, even if the motion itself was filed after the initial appeal period expired.
• Holley v. Capps
  468 F.2d 1366· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the timeliness of the appeal was unclear and required initial determination by the district court.
• Annise Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry
  950 F.2d 1437· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest and strip search, the City of Los Angeles may be liable if the strip searches were conducted pursuant to an unconstitutional policy.
• Wikoff v. Vanderveld
  897 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the stock purchase agreement unambiguously warranted the accuracy of financial statements and that the warranties survived closing, thus reversing the district court's finding of ambiguity and reliance.
• Dalton v. First Interstate Bank OF Denver
  863 F.2d 702· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 11×
  A timely motion to amend a judgment, even if not explicitly styled as such, is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion, requiring a new notice of appeal after its disposition.
• In re Bertoli v. D'Avella
  812 F.2d 136· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 11×
  A motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) can suffice as a notice of appeal, and district courts may hear interlocutory appeals from bankruptcy courts without certification by the bankruptcy judge.
• Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc.
  991 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual employees can be held liable under the ADEA if they participated in discriminatory termination decisions.
• Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Fitch
  966 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not create independent federal question jurisdiction, and a petition to compel arbitration must independently establish federal jurisdiction based on the petition's face, not the underlying dispute.
• LAC DU Flambeau Band OF Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. State OF Wis.
  957 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 10×
  A notice of appeal filed before the district court disposes of a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment is ineffective, requiring a new notice of appeal after the motion is decided.
• Lopez v. CORPORACIÓN Azucarera de Puerto RICO
  938 F.2d 1510· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 10×
  A post-judgment motion questioning the legal correctness of a judgment, even if labeled Rule 60(b), is treated as a Rule 59 motion, thus tolling the appeal period. The employer bears the burden to prove the applicability of the FLSA harvest exemption.
• Zapata Gulf Marine Corp. v. Puerto RICO Mar. Shipping Auth.
  925 F.2d 812· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 10×
  A post-judgment motion for prejudgment interest, even on a Rule 54(b) judgment, qualifies as a Rule 59 motion, rendering any prior notice of appeal ineffective until the motion is resolved.
• Lomax v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's discretion to file a nolle prosequi was not abused, and double jeopardy did not attach before the jury was sworn. The appeal was timely filed.
• Wilbur Hilst, M.D. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  874 F.2d 725· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 10×
  A Bivens action for alleged due process violations is not available when Congress has provided meaningful safeguards or remedies, even if those remedies do not fully compensate for damages.
• In re AIR Crash AT Dallas/Fort Worth Airport ON August 2 v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc.
  852 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Pratt v. D.J. McCARTHY
  850 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a misunderstanding among counsel regarding who would file a notice of appeal does not constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).
• Grandbouche v. Clancy
  825 F.2d 1463· 10th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action without applying a First Amendment balancing test to the plaintiff's assertion of a privilege against discovery. The court also held that the action survives the plaintiff's death under Colorado law.
• Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc.
  803 F.2d 1160· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Alimenta's first notice of appeal was valid because Anheuser's motion regarding costs did not qualify as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment, and that the exclusion of expert testimony was proper. The court also affirmed the district court's rulings on
• Shipley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  796 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that while there was sufficient evidence of conscious pain and suffering and no contributory negligence, the damages awarded were excessive.
• Skagerberg v. State OF Okla.
  797 F.2d 881· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a combined motion for Rule 60 relief and notice of appeal, when the motion is properly construed as a timely Rule 59(e) motion, renders the notice of appeal premature and ineffective.
• Quartana v. Utterback
  789 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The notice of appeal was timely filed, and the plaintiff stated valid claims for libel and tortious interference with contractual relations.
• United States v. ONE Remington 12 Gauge Shotgun
  709 F.2d 1468· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on untimely post-trial motions, rendering the subsequent notice of appeal invalid.
• Gryar v. Odeco Drilling, Inc.
  674 F.2d 373· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended judgment after a notice of appeal had been filed and the time for post-judgment motions had expired.
• Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Rush
  670 F.2d 995· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a post-judgment motion served within the time limit and filed within a reasonable time thereafter is considered timely for tolling the appeal period.
• Lapeyrouse v. Texaco, Inc.
  670 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it must remand the case to determine the timeliness and basis of the motion for rehearing, as this affects whether the notice of appeal was valid.
• Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco
  593 F.2d 166· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that service of the summons and complaint on Vesco at his Bahamas residence was valid and conferred personal jurisdiction, and that Vesco was estopped from challenging this service due to prior litigation.
• Tuley v. Heyd
  492 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal should be remanded to allow the appellant to seek an extension of time to file the notice of appeal due to excusable neglect.
• Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South
  975 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 9×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the author is concurring and discussing the difficulty of classifying causes of action.
• Autorama Corp. v. Joette D. Stewart
  802 F.2d 1284· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the appellants were not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because the underlying action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and not decided on the merits, nor was there a showing of bad faith.
• Bordallo v. Reyes
  763 F.2d 1098· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 9×
  The Guam Visitors Bureau, established as a public corporation under Public Law 17-32, is not an agency or instrumentality of the government, and its structure does not contravene the Organic Act of Guam.
• Herzog Contracting Corp. v. McGOWEN Corp.
  976 F.2d 1062· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-01 ·cited 8×
  A Rule 59(e) motion, even if labeled nunc pro tunc, tolls the time for appeal if it is substantive, and parol evidence is admissible to show a promissory note was a sham not intended to be enforceable.