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

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

• Lusted v. SAN Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist.
  741 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The School District's appeal is dismissed for untimeliness, and Lusted's appeal is affirmed in part, reversing and remanding only the denial of Title VII back pay for a specific period.
• Behring Int'l, Inc. v. Imperial Iranian AIR Force & Iran Aircraft Indus.
  699 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Behring's claims outstanding as of January 19, 1981, were suspended by the Algerian Declarations and Executive Order and must be presented to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and that the Iranian defendants' appeal was untimely.
• Midway Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor
  616 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the deadline for filing a petition for review of an OSHA order is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by a finding of excusable neglect.
• Vuitton ET Fils, S.A. v. J. Young Enters., Inc.
  609 F.2d 1335· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a stipulation should not be construed as a final consent judgment disposing of an entire case unless there is an unequivocal statement of such intent by the parties.
• The United States v. Bruckmann
  582 F.2d 622· C.C.P.A.· 1978-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Bruckmann's cross-appeal was untimely because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) does not apply to appeals from the Customs Court, and the statutory period under 28 U.S.C. § 2601 was not met.
• Grantham v. Morgan Linen Serv. Inc.
  426 F.2d 237· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its authority in granting an untimely extension for filing a notice of appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed.
• United States v. Moats
  961 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not shield Pemex from Repsa's third-party complaint because the cause of action is not sufficiently connected to Pemex's commercial activity in the United States.
• Tr. Co. Bank v. United States Gypsum Co.
  950 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Mississippi statute of repose barred the plaintiff's claims, thus affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Palm Beach Atl. Coll., Inc. v. First United Fund, Ltd.
  928 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the College's cross-appeal was dismissed as untimely, and affirmed the district court's awards of compensatory damages for breach of contract and punitive damages for fraud, but reversed the award of trebled damages for civil theft due to an erroneous jury ins
• Fincher v. Keller Indus.
  905 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 5×
  A motion for costs, even if mislabeled as a Rule 59(e) motion, does not toll the time for filing an appeal because it is collateral to the merits of the judgment.
• Adkins v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  889 F.2d 1360· 4th Cir.· 1989-11-24 ·cited 5×
  A petition for review of a Benefits Review Board decision must be filed with the Court of Appeals within the statutory 60-day period to invoke jurisdiction.
• Campbell Indus., Inc. v. Offshore Logistics Int'l, Inc.
  816 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that appeals were timely filed after the entry of the amended judgment and that the shipowner was entitled to attorney fees incurred in defending against the seaman's claim, but remanded for determination of the amount.
• Bolden v. Junior Odum
  695 F.2d 549· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a motion for a new trial is ineffective and requires a new notice of appeal to be filed after the motion is disposed of.
• United States v. Harre
  983 F.2d 128· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the surety's late-filed answer constituted an appearance, entitling him to notice before a default judgment could be entered, and that the district court erred by not providing the required notice.
• Knox v. The State OF Wyo.
  959 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an application for a certificate of probable cause, filed timely, can serve as a notice of appeal, but the appeal is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Ellison v. Conoco, Inc.
  950 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's May 4 order disposing of the JNOV motion was sufficient for appellate jurisdiction, and that Conoco owed no duty to shut down the turbine engine to prevent Ellison's specific type of injury.
• Smith v. Galley
  919 F.2d 893· 4th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an informal appellate brief, even if filed timely and evincing intent to appeal, cannot substitute for a proper notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
• Bijan N. Tabrizi and Fahimeh A. Tabrizi v. Vill. OF Glen Ellyn
  883 F.2d 587· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of sanctions and attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.
• United States v. ONE Urban LOT
  882 F.2d 582· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 4×
  The appellant's notice of appeal was timely only as to the District Court's denial of her motion to vacate, and the court found no abuse of discretion in that denial.
• Mondrow v. Fountain House and Bernard I. Waters
  867 F.2d 798· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely post-trial motion is a nullity, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction.
• James F.P. Ross and Janet Yvonne Ross v. Global Marine, Inc.
  859 F.2d 336· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 4×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59 motion is void and confers no appellate jurisdiction.
• Baldwin S. MOY v. Howard Univ.
  843 F.2d 1504· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the timing of a post-judgment motion, not its caption, determines whether it tolls the time for filing an appeal, provided it could properly be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and meets the timing requirements.
• Merritt v. Broglin
  841 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The district court must determine if the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal was timely and if the delay was due to excusable neglect.
• Derks v. Dugger
  835 F.2d 778· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's premature notice of appeal was effective due to unique circumstances where the district court misled him into believing it was valid.
• Explosives Corp. OF Am. v. Garlam Enters. Corp.
  817 F.2d 894· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Superior Court judgment did not preclude the district court's findings due to procedural issues and lack of issue identity, and that interest on damages should accrue from the date of the initial judgment, not the later final judgment.
• Daniel v. Warden, State Corr. Inst. AT Huntingdon, PA. & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa. Appeal of John Robert Daniel
  794 F.2d 880· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's determination of the double jeopardy claim, but affirmed the denial of the writ because the double jeopardy claim lacked merit.
• Cardillo v. United States
  767 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal's timeliness was uncertain due to the district court's amendment of the judgment and subsequent procedural filings, necessitating a remand.
• Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't OF Just.
  763 F.2d 1436· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 does not divest this court of jurisdiction if a notice of appeal was filed before the Act's effective date, regardless of the appeal's initial jurisdictional validity.
• United States v. Whitford
  758 F.2d 329· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the § 2255 motion due to untimely notices of appeal, and affirmed the denial of the motion to reconsider.
• Bond v. W. Auto Supply Co.
  654 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacks discretion to permit late filing of an appeal when the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure have not been followed.
• Obin v. Dist. NO. 9 OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  623 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a judgment is not final if it fails to dispose of a distinct claim for attorneys' fees made in the pleadings and pursued throughout the case. Therefore, the appeal was timely.
• United States ex rel. Julius Petrofsky v. VAN Cott
  588 F.2d 1327· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 60-day appeal period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) does not apply when the United States has declined to participate in a False Claims Act suit, even if brought in the name of the United States.
• United States v. Douglas Constr. Co., Inc.
  531 F.2d 478· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States was a real party in interest, making the notice of appeal timely, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing.
• Askew v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  527 F.2d 469· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that ordinary appellate remedies were clearly inadequate, thus mandamus was not appropriate.
• Wagoner v. Wagoner
  938 F.2d 1120· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a prematurely filed notice of appeal is a nullity if filed while a tolling motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is pending.
• Esmael Balboa Tijerina v. Plentl
  984 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a timely motion for a new trial filed under Rule 59 extinguishes any prior notice of appeal, rendering a subsequent appeal premature until the motion is resolved.
• United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc.
  982 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Deutsch
  981 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration filed over two years after the judgment was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), depriving the district court of jurisdiction.
• Simmons v. Ghent
  970 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-10 ·cited 2×
  A timely filed motion to reconsider suspends the time for filing a notice of appeal, but the motion itself must be served within the ten-day period to be effective. A notice of appeal filed before a timely served motion is decided is premature.
• Boston CAR Co., Inc. v. Acura Automobile Division
  971 F.2d 811· 1st Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the market plan listing in the Letter of Intent was not a binding promise and that Boston Car's claim under Chapter 93B was barred by its failure to provide timely notice of its intent to sue.
• Advey v. The Celotex Corp.
  962 F.2d 1177· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  A notice of appeal filed during the pendency of a Rule 59(e) motion in one of two consolidated cases is a nullity as to that case, but not necessarily as to the other case if the parties and issues are not sufficiently merged.
• Harborside Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. Vogel
  959 F.2d 368· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the buyer's complaint, finding the buyer's delay reasonable and entitled to the original contract terms.
• Longstreth v. City OF Tulsa
  948 F.2d 1193· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 2×
  A motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal is not a substantial equivalent of a notice of appeal, and a motion to enlarge time to file a Rule 59 motion is not a Rule 59 motion that tolls the appeal period.
• Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Milwaukee v. Alberts
  937 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction enforcing surety rights of exoneration and quia timet was improvidently granted because the surety failed to establish irreparable harm flowing solely from the loss of those rights.
• Omaha Indian Tribe v. Tract I-Blackbird Bend Area: Agric. & Indus. Inv. Co.
  933 F.2d 1462· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Tribe's quiet title action with prejudice due to the Tribe's intentional and willful noncompliance with court orders and rules.
• In re Champion
  895 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the denial of a temporary restraining order and the dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal, but summarily affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate that dismissal.
• Davidson v. SUN Exploration & Prod. Co.
  857 F.2d 988· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed while a motion for a new trial was pending is ineffective, and a new notice must be filed after the motion is resolved.
• Ferguson v. Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge
  854 F.2d 1169· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 2×
  A union may discipline members for dual unionism and speech incident thereto, provided the discipline is reasonable and serves to protect the union's institutional integrity, even if the speech criticizes union officials.
• Tylo Sauna, S.A. v. Amerec Corp.
  826 F.2d 7· Fed. Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an appeal filed before the disposition of a motion to reconsider a summary judgment (treated as a Rule 59(e) motion) is invalid, and the court lacks jurisdiction without a timely new notice of appeal.
• Guiseppina Musacchia Luciano Girard v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.
  807 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely filed motion to alter or amend the judgment is a nullity.