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

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

• United States v. Schwimmer
  968 F.2d 1570· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the July Order, which granted third-party petitions for forfeited assets, was not binding on D&E, the defendant's appellate counsel, because D&E was not a party to those proceedings and did not have notice. Therefore, D&E could still seek payment of attorneys
• Calcasieu Marine Nat'l Bank v. Grant
  943 F.2d 1453· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the fraud claims but reversed the RICO claims, finding insufficient evidence of a continuous enterprise for RICO.
• Dibidale OF La., Inc. v. Am. Bank & Tr. Co.
  916 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that the bank anti-tying provision requires proof that a bank imposed a tying arrangement as a mandatory condition for a loan, not merely suggested it.
• Taumby v. United States
  919 F.2d 69· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Rule 60(b) motion does not toll the time for appeal, the notice of appeal was timely filed, and the court has jurisdiction.
• Christopher C. DAY, Ph.D. v. Morgenthau
  909 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred because they were filed one day after the three-year statute of limitations expired, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) and New York General Construction Law § 20.
• Keith v. Truck Stops Corp. OF Am.
  909 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest is a Rule 59(e) motion, which must be filed within 10 days of judgment, and that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a jury's finding of negligence.
• Jurgens v. McKASY
  905 F.2d 382· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 8×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion, including a motion for prejudgment interest, is ineffective.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Dudley M. Hughes, Jr.
  891 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction because it failed to designate the specific order being appealed, despite the possibility that the underlying motion could be construed under Rule 60(b).
• Archer v. Lynaugh
  821 F.2d 1094· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's belated appeal is precluded by strict appellate rules regarding timely notice of appeal and the effect of post-judgment motions.
• Swimmer v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  811 F.2d 1343· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal of the original summary judgment was untimely, but the denials of the post-judgment motions were properly before the court and affirmed. Sanctions were imposed for a frivolous appeal.
• Winfield O. Knight and Audrey P. Knight v. Brown Transp. Corp.
  806 F.2d 479· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Brown Transport was not estopped from pleading the statute of limitations because there was no misrepresentation, no statutory duty to disclose, and the plaintiff failed to act diligently or utilize available procedural devices.
• McNEIL v. Blackburn
  802 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a timely but unsigned notice of appeal satisfies jurisdictional requirements and that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a habeas corpus petition without requiring a state response.
• Zelig Herman v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am. Appeal of Zelig Herman
  762 F.2d 288· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the expiration of the original appeal time, and a late motion cannot be validated.
• In re 6 & 40 Inv. Grp., Inc. v. 6 & 40 Inv. Grp., Inc.
  752 F.2d 515· 10th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because the petition for rehearing was not filed within the required ten days, and therefore did not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal.
• Gulliver v. Dalsheim
  739 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellate counsel's brief, while perhaps not perfect, met the constitutional standard for effective assistance, and reversed the grant of habeas corpus.
• Alamo Chem. Transp. Co. v. M/V Overseas Valdes
  726 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that reliance on the clerk of court to provide notice of judgment entry does not constitute excusable neglect or a basis for relief from the time limitations for filing an appeal.
• Sutherland v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc.
  710 F.2d 473· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to reinstate the complaint was not an abuse of discretion, as the attorney's failure to appear was due to carelessness, not excusable neglect.
• Fla. Women's Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Smith
  706 F.2d 1172· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 8×
  An appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed before the disposition of a motion to alter or amend judgment, and no new notice was filed after the disposition.
• United States v. 397.51 Acres OF Land
  692 F.2d 688· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the brother's promise to pay a portion of the condemnation award was a personal contract not subject to the rule against perpetuities, and affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the division of the award. The court remanded the interest issue for fur
• United States v. Jackson
  691 F.2d 478· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bonding company's notice of appeal was timely filed under the civil rules, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in forfeiting the bond.
• Trowel Trades Emps. Health & Welf. Tr. Fund OF Dade Cnty. v. Edward L. Nezelek, Inc.
  645 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Nezelek's appeal was timely and that the subcontracting clause did not violate Florida's right-to-work law due to insufficient evidence of its effect.
• In re Andrews v. S.D. Student Loan Assistance Corp.
  636 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the ten-day time limit under Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 802(a) is inapplicable to direct appeals from the bankruptcy court to the court of appeals; the thirty-day period prescribed by section 405(c)-(d) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 and Eighth Circuit
• United States v. McKNIGHT
  593 F.2d 230· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it has the power to remand a case to the district court for a determination of excusable neglect, even if appellate jurisdiction is uncertain.
• Butler v. Sinn
  423 F.2d 1116· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Gus Lindsey, Jr. v. Perini
  409 F.2d 1341· 6th Cir.· 1969-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a belated appeal cannot be filed without a provision for it, and a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional.
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. Town OF Babylon
  900 F.2d 551· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 7×
  Municipal ordinances restricting commercial and noncommercial speech are unconstitutional if they fail to state a substantial governmental interest or directly advance it, and if they discriminate between commercial and noncommercial speech without justification. Unconstitutional
• Hall v. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr. of Beaver Cnty.
  772 F.2d 42· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the denial of an untimely appeal, adhering to established rules regarding the finality of judgments and attorney responsibility.
• Steinhoff v. Harris
  698 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 7×
• Elius Lamar Reed v. Amax Coal Co.
  971 F.2d 1295· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment for the employer is affirmed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII and his § 1981 claims are precluded by a prior administrative decision.
• Vargas v. Hudson Cnty. Bd. OF Elections
  949 F.2d 665· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an insurer owed coverage for civil rights violations and that attorney fees awarded to third parties were an element of damages, making the appeal timely only as to the final fee quantification. However, the court reversed an enhancement of attorney fees due t
• Justine Realty Co. v. Am. Nat'l CAN Co.
  945 F.2d 1044· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Justine's post-judgment motion for attorney fees was not a request for fees attributable to the case, and therefore did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Faysound Ltd. v. Falcon JET Corp. Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc.
  940 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed before the district court's final judgment became effective, and no new notice was filed thereafter.
• Turner v. Armontrout
  922 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause, filed by a pro se petitioner within the time limits, can serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, thus conferring jurisdiction.
• In re Sharon Steel Corp. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
  918 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the district court to rule on ARCO's motion to reconsider, as the district court's inaction constituted an abdication of judicial power and frustrated appellate jurisdiction.
• Alerte v. McGINNIS
  898 F.2d 69· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's notice of appeal was ineffective because it was filed before the district court formally entered its order denying the state's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
• Certain Underwriters AT Lloyds OF London v. Evans
  896 F.2d 1255· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an untimely notice of appeal, filed after an improperly granted extension of time that exceeded the limits set by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. The court also held that the exclusionary language in an i
• Charles L.M. v. Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist.
  884 F.2d 869· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 6×
  A successive motion for reconsideration, based on substantially the same grounds as an earlier motion, does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Bodin v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  877 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was invalid because it was filed before the district court ruled on a timely Rule 59(e) motion to amend the complaint, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
• Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc.
  879 F.2d 632· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while enhancement of attorney fees for the risk of loss in this antitrust action was proper, enhancement for work on the fee petition was an abuse of discretion. The contingent fee agreement did not limit the award.
• Jose R.E. Martinez v. Lewis Sullivan, M.D.
  874 F.2d 751· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is a nullity, requiring dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Hard v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  870 F.2d 1454· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a juror's brief, decades-old employment with a predecessor company, to which no specific voir dire questions were directed, did not constitute an honest failure to answer a material question or provide a basis for a challenge for cause, nor did his recounting
• Lorin Andre v. Guste
  850 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 6×
  A petitioner cannot avoid dismissal of a successive habeas petition under Rule 9(b) by simply refiling the same petition after failing to appeal the dismissal of the first petition.
• Anant Kumar Tripati v. Henman
  845 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 6×
  A district court retains subject matter jurisdiction to consider a timely Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment even if filed after a notice of appeal.
• United States v. Wade
  841 F.2d 331· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 6×
  A notice of appeal filed after a verdict but before sentencing ripens into an appealable order when the judgment of sentence is entered, and is not a jurisdictional defect.
• Fairley v. Jones
  824 F.2d 440· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's notice of appeal was timely due to the 'unique circumstances' exception, and that the magistrate did not err in denying punitive damages or a jury trial on remand.
• Trinity Carton Co., Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  816 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Trinity's Rule 60(b) motion because the appeal of the underlying judgment was untimely, and the motion itself lacked the requisite equities for relief.
• Sine v. Local NO. 992
  790 F.2d 1095· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of certain post-trial motions is ineffective, and the district court erred in deeming pending motions moot due to a premature appeal.
• Hooper v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  785 F.2d 1228· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that notices of appeal filed before the district court ruled on a motion for attorney's fees were premature and thus a nullity, depriving the court of appellate jurisdiction.
• Ashby Enters., Ltd. v. Weitzman
  780 F.2d 1043· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court emphasizes that Rule 60(b) cannot be used to bypass time limits for appeals by vacating and reinstating judgments.
• Ced's Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  745 F.2d 1092· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EPA had statutory authority under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act to inspect and copy business records of any person subject to the Act's requirements, regardless of whether the EPA had previously required those records to be maintained. The court also