651 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 78 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-09
The court denied the defendant's motions for clarification and to amend/supplement its summary judgment order, finding them procedurally improper and substantively lacking.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of her reimbursement request was denied because it failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration and presented arguments that could have been raised earlier.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-05-14
The court held that a Certificate of Appealability (COA) is not warranted for the denial of the motion to alter or amend judgment because the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-28
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's objection, construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, was denied because there were no manifest errors of law or fact, and the prior dismissal grounds of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and judicial immunity were upheld.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-02
The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the untimeliness of his administrative appeal was not cognizable in a § 2241 petition because it challenged the circumstances of his confinement, not the validity or duration of his sentence, and he failed to exhaust administra
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
The court held that the inmate's motion for reconsideration was denied because the prior dismissal under the "three-strikes" rule was not overly broad and did not constitute manifest error.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
The court granted the motion to alter or amend to address equal protection but otherwise denied it, and denied the motion for recusal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-25
The court held that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient basis to vacate its prior opinion and reconsider the decision.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-20
The court denied the respondents' motion for rehearing/reconsideration because they failed to demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact and merely reiterated previously addressed arguments.
-
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
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-20
The court held that a Rule 59(e) motion is not an appeal and cannot be used to relitigate issues or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-01-16
The court held that a motion for reconsideration should be granted because the petitioner's detention status changed, rendering the original habeas petition moot, and the court vacated its prior order and dismissed the petition.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-01-15
A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-12-27
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the order of dismissal, finding no grounds for relief under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion because it lacked jurisdiction due to a pending appeal and the motion failed to meet the grounds for reconsideration.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-17
The court reserved ruling on the motion for reconsideration, allowing the plaintiff to supplement his motion.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-19
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was meritless and denied it, finding no manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or grounds for relief under Rule 59(e).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-15
The court denied plaintiffs' motions to reconsider, certify for interlocutory appeal, and reopen discovery, finding their evidence insufficient to prove damages for tortious interference and that the issues presented were factual, not controlling legal questions suitable for inte
-
The court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to appear at a deposition should not be granted when the parties agreed to reschedule and there was no flagrant disregard of discovery duties.
-
521 F. Supp. 2d 1185·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-02-27
The court held that it misapplied prior case law and that a lender who takes title to a condominium project and offers units for sale is a 'developer' subject to statutory implied warranties, even if it did not perform the construction.
-
244 F.R.D. 137·
S.D. Fla.·
2012-06-13
The court granted defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to correct a scrivener's error, finding good cause under Rule 16(b) and that justice required leave under Rule 15(a)(2).
-
645 F. Supp. 2d 1101·
M.D. Fla.·
2009-07-13
The court held that prejudgment interest is due on the unpaid portion of an insurance appraisal award from the date payment was contractually due, but not on a bad faith claim where the date of loss is unascertainable.
-
641 F. Supp. 2d 1297·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-07-03
Summary judgment is granted for plaintiffs on standing, anticipation, obviousness, and laches, but denied on infringement and inequitable conduct.
-
597 F. Supp. 2d 1320·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-12-17
The court held that its prior award of attorney's fees and costs was reasonable and denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
-
444 F. Supp. 2d 1234·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-08-15
The court held that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the common law flowage easement claim because its actions were aimed at restoring natural water flow, not interfering with it. The court also found that certain deed descriptions were too ambiguous to establish
-
171 F. Supp. 2d 1319·
M.D. Fla.·
2001-08-22
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment to include post-hearing interest and denied the defendants' petition to vacate the judgment, finding no lack of jurisdiction or merit to their arguments.
-
999 F.2d 1221·
8th Cir.·
1993-07-21
A motion to amend findings or judgment filed before judgment entry, but after the court has announced its decision and parties have notice, is considered timely and tolls the time for appeal. However, motions to amend findings or judgment cannot be extended under Bankruptcy Rule
-
998 F.2d 735·
9th Cir.·
1993-07-13
-
998 F.2d 810·
10th Cir.·
1993-07-07
The court held that the insurer's motion to dismiss the appeal was untimely because the motion for prejudgment interest tolled the time for filing the notice of appeal, and that the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages for bad faith was supported by sufficient eviden
-
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.
-
994 F.2d 390·
7th Cir.·
1993-05-28
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order remanding the case to state court was not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
-
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.
-
988 F.2d 619·
5th Cir.·
1993-04-20
The court held that a judgment is not final if it requires complex factual determinations to calculate damages, even if co-ownership is established.
-
990 F.2d 342·
7th Cir.·
1993-04-06
The district court correctly refused to consider an affidavit that contradicted prior deposition testimony, even if the motion to reconsider was mischaracterized.
-
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.
-
985 F.2d 425·
8th Cir.·
1993-02-05
The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is premature, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
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.
-
984 F.2d 875·
7th Cir.·
1993-01-29
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order under Rule 60(b).
-
984 F.2d 622·
4th Cir.·
1993-01-26
The court held that public housing tenants have enforceable rights to challenge procedural violations of HUD utility allowance regulations under the Brooke Amendment, and that genuine issues of fact existed regarding the reasonableness of HABC's allowances.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
973 F.2d 1479·
9th Cir.·
1992-09-01
The court held that while collateral estoppel does not apply due to changed circumstances regarding the ULC's tax-exempt status, the prior jury verdict has probative value, raising material disputes of fact regarding the Carters' entitlement to a charitable contribution deduction
-
966 F.2d 164·
5th Cir.·
1992-06-30
The court held that consecutive terms of special parole are permissible under the statutory scheme and that the appeal was timely filed under the liberal construction afforded to pro se prisoner filings.
-
962 F.2d 1528·
10th Cir.·
1992-05-06
The court held that the district court exceeded its mandate on remand by attempting to alter the substance of an already affirmed tort judgment, and that a change in state law after appeal does not justify reopening the judgment.
-
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.
-
960 F.2d 673·
7th Cir.·
1992-04-03
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on grounds not adequately presented or responded to by the non-moving party.
-
The court held that the attorney's charging lien should be calculated on a quantum meruit basis, and prejudgment interest should accrue from the date of the attorney's discharge, not the initial trial judgment.
-
956 F.2d 509·
5th Cir.·
1992-03-31
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal and the district court abused its discretion in allowing an untimely amended notice.
-
956 F.2d 958·
10th Cir.·
1992-02-11
The court held that the district court properly denied the appellants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs because it was untimely filed under the local rule.