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

• 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.
• Columbia GAS Transmission v. Ltd. Corp.
  951 F.2d 110· 6th Cir.· 1991-12-19
  The court held that the owner of the dominant estate (coal) is liable for damages and relocation costs when its operations interfere with the servient estate (gas pipelines), as Kentucky law and precedent require the party seeking to alter the status quo to bear the expense.
• Barnhart v. Compugraphic Corp.
  936 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-12
  A finding of a good faith dispute between an employer and employee does not preclude an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) for an employee who has prevailed on a claim for past due wages.
• Greene v. Town OF Blooming Grove
  935 F.2d 507· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-10
  The court held that the district court erred in exercising pendent jurisdiction over an unpleaded state law claim for declaratory relief after a jury found for the defendant on the federal claim.
• Pohlmeyer v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  939 F.2d 318· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-30
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary's determination of disability benefit amounts because the claimant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
• McDOWELL v. Dynamics Corp. OF Am.
  931 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-29
  The Court of Appeals held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because the grounds presented were covered by other subsections of Rule 60(b) with a one-year time limit, which had expired. Therefore, the appeal from the order granting rel
• Williams v. Kingston Shipping Co., Inc.
  925 F.2d 721· 4th Cir.· 1991-02-07
  The majority erred in awarding full attorney fees for all claims, as fee-shifting in maritime law is narrowly limited to specific circumstances not present here.
• United States for the Use of Pippin v. J.R. Youngdale Constr. Co., Inc.
  923 F.2d 146· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-11
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a Rule 59(e) motion is a nullity, requiring a new notice after the motion is decided. The court also held that for leased equipment under the Miller Act, the statute of limitations begins to run when the equip
• Hernandez v. Whiting
  881 F.2d 768· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04
  A district court must consider less drastic alternatives before dismissing a prisoner's pro se civil rights suit for failure to appear due to incarceration.
• Spangle v. Ming TAH Elec. Co.
  866 F.2d 1002· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-26
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a postjudgment motion for contribution because it was not filed within the time allowed for appeal.
• Anant Kumar Tripati v. G.L. Henman
  857 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-26 ·via Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  A final judgment retains its res judicata consequences pending appeal, and a pending Rule 59(e) motion does not deprive a judgment of finality for res judicata purposes.
• In re Am. Cas. Co. v. City OF Detroit
  851 F.2d 794· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-08
  The court held that the surety is liable for the contractor's breach, but the City's damages were not proven with sufficient certainty and attorney fees were properly denied.
• Larosa v. United States
  841 F.2d 544· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-14
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding jeopardy tax assessments, as 26 U.S.C.A. § 7429(f) makes such determinations final and conclusive.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hermil, Inc.
  838 F.2d 1151· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The appellate court reviewed an order from the deputy commissioner that granted wage-loss benefits and attorney fees to a claimant who sustained a work-related injury.
• Hoffman v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  814 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-15
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration was timely filed under Rule 6(a) and that tax liens provided a valid ground for contract termination, affirming the summary judgment.
• Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth.
  794 F.2d 1485· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-09
  A notice of appeal filed while a Rule 52(b) motion is pending in the district court is a nullity, requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Neurological Assocs. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
  632 F. Supp. 1078· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-29
  The court held that the action was improperly removed because the state court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, and thus, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, the federal court also lacked jurisdiction.
• Cunningham v. Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  765 F.2d 61· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-09
• Athens Newspapers, Inc. v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
  729 F.2d 1412· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16
  The court held that Jefferson's purchase option was not extinguished by its attempted exercise of the put option, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Athens' motion to reinstate its expired reacquisition option.
• The United States v. Ainsworth Charles Jackson. Appeal of Ainsworth C. Jackson
  684 F.2d 245· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-19
  The court held that a district court may have jurisdiction over a motion to vacate a prior sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, even if the movant is no longer in custody for that sentence, if the prior sentence directly affects the duration of their current confinement.
• Quintana v. Harris
  663 F.2d 78· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-04 ·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the trial court's denial of a Rule 59(e) motion without specific reasons or findings necessitates a remand for clarification.