Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E)

651 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 78 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Knighton v. Watkins
  616 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-07 ·cited 174×
  Attorney's fees were warranted under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but the trial court's award was inadequate and improperly calculated. The court vacated the award and remanded for redetermination.
• Harcon Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.
  784 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-12 ·cited 137×
  A post-judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment served within ten days of entry, other than for purely clerical errors, must be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion for purposes of appellate timing rules.
• CAR Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. & Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.
  745 F.2d 1101· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because they did not allege anticompetitive effects, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend after dismissing the action.
• Smith v. Leman Hudson
  600 F.2d 60· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without considering all properly filed discovery materials, even without a timely response from the non-moving party. The court also found the notice of appeal was timely filed.
• Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co.
  875 F.2d 468· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-16 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the employer may be liable for sexual harassment by coworkers if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.
• Obin v. Dist. NO. 9 OF THE Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  651 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 111×
  A motion for attorney's fees is a collateral and independent claim, not governed by the ten-day limit of Rule 59(e), and district courts retain jurisdiction to award fees after judgment on the merits.
• Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Indus.
  728 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 107×
  The court held that an order declaring entitlement to attorney's fees under ERISA is appealable even if the amount is not yet determined, and that the district court should reconsider the fee award under a 'substantially justified' standard, not a frivolousness standard.
• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  871 F.2d 179· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed under Title VII because she failed to demonstrate a discriminatory act within the 240-day limitations period or sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.
  690 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the defendants' protests to the ICC were not immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because they constituted a sham exception, and that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Kennedy v. City OF Cleveland
  797 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 94×
  The right to an immediate interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity is conditioned upon timely filing of a notice of appeal and can be waived by noncompliance with reasonable temporal limitations set by the district court.
• Bond v. Stanton
  630 F.2d 1231· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-19 ·cited 90×
  Prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to attorney's fees for appellate work on the merits and for time spent litigating their entitlement to fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act.
• Holmes v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc.
  682 F.2d 1143· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 86×
  An order leaving the amount of attorney's fees, awarded as damages for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure, undetermined is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.
• Charles v. Daley
  799 F.2d 343· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the intervenors' appeal was timely because the district court's substantive alterations to the judgment restarted the time for appeal, even though successive Rule 59 motions are generally not permitted to toll appeal time.
• Quillie B. Woodham v. The Am. Cystoscope Co. OF Pelham
  335 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1964-08-03 ·cited 80×
  The court held that dismissal of a complaint for an attorney's failure to comply with local rules, without notice or hearing, was an improper and overly harsh sanction, especially when the client was not at fault.
• Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc.
  910 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering a late-filed expert deposition under Rule 59(e) and that the expert was qualified under Rule 702.
• Dougherty v. Lehman
  711 F.2d 555· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 71×
  A notice of appeal filed while a motion for reconsideration is pending is a nullity, and the government's position is substantially justified if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
• Ward v. Cnty. OF SAN Diego
  791 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the law was sufficiently clear in May 1981 to subject a public official to civil liability for authorizing blanket strip searches of minor offense arrestees, but that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees.
• Textile Banking Co., Inc. v. Rentschler
  657 F.2d 844· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the appeal of the default judgment order was untimely, but affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion because the district court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.
• In re the Arb. between Merrill Lynch v. Haydu
  637 F.2d 391· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying Haydu's motion to reconsider its order compelling arbitration without addressing the effect of the prior state court's denial of arbitration and the prior federal court's remand order.
• Milbert v. Bison Labs., Inc.
  260 F.2d 431· 3d Cir.· 1958-10-28 ·cited 69×
  The court held that an application for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must strictly comply with the statutory conditions, including timely certification by the district judge and timely application to the court of appeals.
• Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood
  278 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-25 ·cited 68×
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue decided issues and that the plaintiffs failed to present new facts or law to warrant overturning the prior order.
• Scola v. Boat Frances
  618 F.2d 147· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 68×
  The Court of Appeals reversed the amended judgment, holding that the addition of pre-judgment interest was an error of law, not a clerical mistake, and that the motion for relief was untimely and not supported by Rule 60(b)(6).
• Adams v. Russell
  739 F.2d 858· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, as the proposed amendment stated a meritorious claim not barred by the statute of limitations or prior decisions.
• Myles Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 64×
  Notices of appeal filed before the district court's final judgment on prejudgment interest are ineffective. An appeal from a nonfinal order taxing costs is also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.
  739 F.2d 1415· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-07 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Phoenix's motion for reconsideration tolled the time for appeal, allowing review of the preliminary injunction, which was affirmed. The appeal from the denial of summary judgment was dismissed.
• Mallis v. Bankers Tr. Co.
  717 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 62×
  A trial judge may legitimately consider the passage of time and the procedural history of a case when exercising discretion on a motion for a new trial.
• Inryco, Inc. v. Metro. Eng'g Co., Inc.
  708 F.2d 1225· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the defendants' conduct, including their counsel's repeated failures to appear, respond to discovery, and comply with court orders, constituted inexcusable neglect, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the de
• Beliz v. W.H. McLEOD & Sons Packing Co.
  765 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the farmer was liable as an employer for unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that the workers were not at fault for failing to prove their hours. The court also dismissed the farmer's cross-appeal as untimely.
• McQURTER v. City OF Atlanta
  724 F.2d 881· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 56×
  An order resolving all issues except attorney's fees is a final, appealable order, even if the fees have not yet been awarded.
• The D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.
  714 F.2d 1144· Fed. Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 56×
  The court held that offering a product made by a method invention for sale more than one year before filing a patent application constitutes placing the method 'on sale,' thereby invalidating the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and that a post-judgment hearing can cure a procedu
• Barry v. Bowen
  825 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the award of attorney's fees under the EAJA was proper, but the hourly rate should be reduced from $150 to $75.
• Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.
  639 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a party's control over another's securities and unfettered ability to use the proceeds for their own benefit constitutes 'profit realized by him' under § 16(b), affirming liability. However, the court reversed and remanded on the issue of the statute of limita
• Aloe Coal Co. & Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Clark Equip. Co.
  816 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 51×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  A purchaser of industrial equipment cannot recover in tort for damage to the product itself caused by a fire, as such loss is purely economic and limited to remedies under warranty law.
• Dove v. Codesco
  569 F.2d 807· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-18 ·cited 51×
  The court held that dismissal of a case for an attorney's failure to attend a pretrial conference, without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, is an abuse of discretion and that lesser sanctions should be imposed.
• Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc.
  537 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 51×
  The denial of a motion to intervene as untimely was not an abuse of discretion, as the petitioner delayed unreasonably in seeking to join the litigation.
• Lamar Advertising OF Mobile, Inc. v. City OF Lakeland
  189 F.R.D. 480· M.D. Fla.· 1999-10-07 ·cited 50×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The 1990 ordinances were void ab initio because the city made a substantial change to the proposed ordinance by dividing it into two separate ordinances after the first public hearing without restarting the notice process required by Florida law. The 1997 ordinance violated the s
• Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l
  320 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 2004-06-09 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the defendants' extensive business operations and significant contacts within the United States, particularly Carnival Corporation's substantial ownership and control of Costa Crociere and its subsidiaries, justified the application of the Jones Act and preclu
• Andrews v. City OF Philadelphia & Wilson W. Goode
  895 F.2d 1469· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the jury's findings on § 1983 claims were not sufficient to establish a Title VII hostile work environment claim, and that certain judgments n.o.v. were appropriate while others were not.
• United States Labor Party v. Oremus
  619 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 48×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, or Equal Protection Clause, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their post-judgment motion to amend
• Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  724 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 47×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a final order if the court's order does not explicitly state that no amendment is possible, and thus the appeal of the denial of leave to amend is timely. The court also hel
• Miller v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  755 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was time-barred because he failed to file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the 300-day statutory period after receiving notice of termination. The court
• Textor v. Bd. OF Regents OF N. Ill. Univ.
  711 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint and that the attorneys were denied a fair hearing on the award of attorney's fees.
• N. Conant Webb, M.D. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  696 F.2d 101· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while unique circumstances excused the appellant's untimely appeal, his challenge to the FDA regulation was not ripe for judicial review because it was presented in an abstract form without a specific, denied FOIA request.
• Calhoun v. United States
  647 F.2d 6· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appeal was timely because the notice of appeal was filed after the announcement of the decision denying the post-judgment motion, even if not formally entered, and that the district court's intent for the order to be final was clear.
• Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno
  547 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 46×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  A receiver acting under court orders shares the appointing judge's absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a bank and corporation accused of conspiring with the receiver do not. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981 were properly dismissed.
• Delvina E. Lorenzen v. Emps. Ret. Plan OF THE Sperry & Hutchinson Co., Inc.
  896 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 45×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a Rule 59 motion is nullified and a new notice must be filed.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  691 F.2d 438· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a Rule 60 motion was the proper procedural vehicle to challenge a costs award based on an alleged error of law or the law of the case, and that Rule 68 mandated costs for the state.
• Sec. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Century Cas. Co.
  621 F.2d 1062· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 44×
• LoRusso v. Warden, N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-26 ·cited 43×
  LoRusso, proceeding pro se, petitioned for reconsideration of a denial of appointed counsel and a case dismissal for failure to pay filing fees or request pauper status. The court denied the motion, holding that reconsideration is an extraordinary measure applied sparingly and th
• Jones v. W. Geophysical Co. OF Am.
  669 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-03 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment by improperly deciding factual issues and that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding discrimination.