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

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

• In re Cobb v. Graco Enters., Ltd.
  750 F.2d 477· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of post-trial motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), 52(b), or 59 is a nullity and requires a new notice of appeal after the motions are decided.
• In re Johnson v. Atlanta GAS Light Co.
  747 F.2d 701· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's notice of appeal was untimely because it was filed before the district court ruled on a motion for rehearing, and a second notice was not filed after the motion was denied.
• Reed v. Toledo Area Affirmative Action Program FOR the Constr. Indus.
  715 F.2d 253· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a successive motion for reconsideration, filed after the initial motion to amend was denied, does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Felix v. Cardwell
  545 F.2d 92· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• Clark v. Henderson
  465 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed because it was not timely filed.
• Locke v. Warren
  2019 WL 1227968· S.D. Fla.· 2020-05-05 ·cited 1×
  A district court, after a timely Rule 59(e) motion, can correct errors not raised by the movant, especially when the correction benefits the movant.
• Hinton v. City OF Elwood
  997 F.2d 774· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the arresting officers' use of force did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellant's claims against the officers and the city.
• Marine Midland Bank v. Slyman
  995 F.2d 362· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that res judicata barred the Slymans' affirmative defense regarding collateral disposition, but not their counterclaims for personal damages arising from Marine's management of Accurate's affairs.
• Bohdan Maksymchuk v. Frank
  987 F.2d 1072· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-26 ·cited 1×
• Murray W. Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc.
  709 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the speech or debate privilege protects questions about a former Congressman's sources of information, but not questions about republication of material outside Congress. The court also affirmed the denial of sanctions.
• Life Ins. Co. of the Sw. v. Clarke
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-16
  Default judgment was entered against defendants Hope of Glory Church of Christ and Stephanie Marie Clarke as personal representative, and the clerk was directed to disburse interpleaded funds. The plaintiff insurer was discharged from liability, and defendants were enjoined from
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Start Connecting LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-20
  The court entered a default judgment against Start Connecting SAS and Juan S. Rojas for $7,304,737.29, jointly and severally with previously settled defendants.
• Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co. v. Eleguas Trucking Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-30
  The court entered a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant Eleguas Trucking Inc. Any motions for attorney's fees or costs must follow local rules.
• Shenzhen Kinwong Elec. Co, Ltd v. Kukreja
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to alter the judgment, recalculating disgorgement damages and awarding prejudgment interest at the rate set by 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a)(2).
• Alligood v. Sunshine Bus. Mgmt. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-17
  The court entered a default judgment against one defendant for damages and interest, and specified it is joint and several with other judgments.
• McKesson Corp. v. Benzer OH 7 LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-05
  McKesson Corporation obtained a default judgment against Benzer Pharmacy Holding LLC and related defendants for $90,031.01 plus post-judgment interest. The order clarifies that despite multiple default judgment motions, there is one underlying debt, and recovery from any defendan
• Aparicio v. Mar Tile Design Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-19
  The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, entering judgment for $11,480.00 and closing the case.
• Martinson v. Captain Carter
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-01
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal is a tactical litigation decision and not grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) when a party simply changes their mind.
• United States v. Schwarzbaum
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-29
  The district court has jurisdiction to order repatriation of foreign assets to satisfy a judgment, even during an appeal, if the repatriation itself is not the subject of the appeal.
• Doak v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-13
  Judgment is entered affirming the Commissioner's decision, and in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security against Christopher Kenneth Doak.
• GLF Constr. Corp. v. Fedcon Joint Venture
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-10
  The court held that prejudgment interest is a matter of right under Florida law when damages are liquidated, and sustained FEDCON's objection to quarterly interest calculations, adopting annual adjustments as per Fla. Stat. § 55.03.
• Hill v. Johnson
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-01
  The court granted the plaintiff's request to file a notice of appeal but denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the appeal was not taken in good faith.
• Gary Conns Collision Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  11th Cir.· 2020-03-06
  Automotive body shops in Mississippi, Indiana, and Utah brought antitrust and state-law claims against major insurance companies, alleging price-fixing and boycotts related to repair pricing. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Indiana and Utah body shops' appeals for lack of jurisd
• In re Flanagan
  999 F.2d 753· 3d Cir.· 1993-07-27
  The court held that the prison mailbox rule, established in Houston v. Lack, applies to pro se prisoners appealing bankruptcy court orders to the district court, deeming the notice of appeal timely when deposited with prison authorities.
• Buckingham v. United States
  998 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-13
• Lentomyynti OY v. Medivac
  997 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-01
  A motion for Rule 68 costs is not a substantive Rule 59(e) motion, thus the plaintiffs' notice of appeal was timely. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial or in allowing impeachment of an expert witness.
• Mouawad S.B. Guirguis v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  993 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-21
  A petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order must be received by the clerk of the court of appeals within the statutory time limit, and the Houston v. Lack mailbox rule does not apply to such petitions.
• Agustina Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc.
  993 F.2d 281· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-25
  The court held that the admission of undisclosed expert testimony constituted unfair surprise and misconduct, warranting a new trial. It also found appellate jurisdiction was properly established.
• Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  987 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motions to extend the time for appeal and to set aside the order, as the movant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or timely pursue available procedural remedies.
• Reilly v. Hussey
  989 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-23
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed while a motion for reconsideration was pending in the district court is a nullity, divesting the court of jurisdiction.
• Carter v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Eaton Corp.
  983 F.2d 40· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-08
  An appeal of a costs award is timely if filed within thirty days of the clerk taxing the costs, and federal procedural rules, not state substantive law, govern the award of costs in diversity cases.
• Smith v. Barry
  985 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-08
  An informal brief requesting a new trial can suffice as a notice of appeal if it functionally meets the requirements of Rule 3(c), but it was insufficient to appeal the dismissal of Dr. Barry.
• In re Kye Trout v. Trout
  984 F.2d 977· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-02
  The court held that an appeal filed before the district court ruled on a motion for reconsideration, construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, is premature.
• United States v. Clark
  984 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-15
  A motion to reconsider a Section 2255 ruling is available, treated as Rule 59(e) if filed within 10 days and Rule 60(b) if filed thereafter, with the latter reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Pollution Control Indus. OF Am. v. VAN Gundy
  979 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-19
  A party cannot appeal a judgment with which it agrees, even if dissatisfied with the court's reasoning, as the appellate court reviews judgments, not opinions.
• Ingram v. Acands, Inc.
  977 F.2d 1332· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-21
  The court held that minute orders denying post-trial motions, when properly entered and noticed, can trigger the appeal period, even if a subsequent written order is filed. The court also affirmed jury verdicts in asbestos exposure cases, finding substantial evidence for causatio
• Concepcion Giove v. Stanko
  977 F.2d 413· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-02
  The court held that the district court's determination of fraudulent conveyances was not clearly erroneous and that the appeals were timely filed. The court affirmed the judgment setting aside transfers of property as fraudulent conveyances made after May 9, 1985.
• Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City OF Dallas
  970 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-01
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the City acted in bad faith and with intent to harass, thus justifying federal intervention despite pending state proceedings, and that the City could be held liable as its officers acted pursuant to official poli
• Diaz v. Romer
  961 F.2d 1508· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-20
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the HIV policy, did not err in creating subclasses or awarding attorney's fees, and did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery and awarding associated fees.
• Esmael Balboa Tijerina v. Plentl
  958 F.2d 133· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-16
  A motion to proceed IFP can serve as a notice of appeal, and the case must be reconsidered in light of a new Supreme Court decision on excessive force claims.
• Cary R. Ortberg v. Russel Moody
  961 F.2d 135· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-03
  A request for a Certificate of Probable Cause can serve as a notice of appeal, and a nolo contendere plea bars challenges to pre-plea constitutional violations not related to the plea's voluntariness.
• Bbca, Inc. v. United States
  954 F.2d 1429· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-24
  The court held that BBCA's notice of appeal was untimely because it was filed more than sixty days after the original dismissal order, and neither the IRS's motion to amend nor BBCA's motion to reconsider qualified as a Rule 59 motion to extend the appeal period.
• United States v. Wheeler
  952 F.2d 326· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-27
  A district court's order refusing to vacate an underlying contempt order is nonappealable when the grounds for vacatur existed at the time the contempt order was entered and the contemnor failed to appeal timely from that order.
• Commercial Prop. Invs., Inc. v. Quality Inns Int'l, Inc.
  938 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-10
  The court held that the Minnesota Franchise Act did not apply due to a choice-of-law provision, but reversed summary judgment on the common-law fraud claim, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding reliance and damages.
• Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and Roopa Yadav v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
  935 F.2d 540· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-13
  The court held that the appeal was properly invoked despite a premature notice of appeal because the district court clerk's failure to transmit the notice of appeal prevented the appellate court from timely dismissing it.
• Myron Jacobson v. Jess Nielsen
  932 F.2d 1272· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-15
  The district court properly dismissed the appeal as untimely due to failure to file the notice of appeal and record designation within the required timeframes.
• Mark T. Dunn in bankruptcy for the Estate of Steven D. Stone v. Truck World
  929 F.2d 311· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-05
  A pre-judgment motion for a new trial does not suspend the finality of a judgment, and the time to appeal runs from the entry of the judgment itself.
• Penrod Drilling Co. v. The United States
  925 F.2d 406· Fed. Cir.· 1991-02-07
  The Court of International Trade did not abuse its discretion in denying Penrod's motion to extend the time for appeal because the failure to timely serve a motion to rehear was due to Penrod's own negligence, not excusable neglect or good cause.
• Durango Assocs., Inc. v. Reflange, Inc.
  912 F.2d 1423· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-10
  The court held that a second post-judgment motion does not extend the time to appeal if not filed within 10 days of the judgment, and a notice of appeal cannot be amended to extend the time for appeal.
• Twashakarris, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. OF the United States
  890 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-22
  The court held that the plaintiffs' refiled complaint was untimely because their prior appeal and motions did not toll the one-year period provided by the Oklahoma savings statute.