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

• Walker v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  268 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, and that the denial of the motion to alter the dismissal order was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Courtney v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc.
  899 F.2d 845· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim was not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 post-Patterson, the employee handbook did not create an implied contract, the defamation claims lacked admissible evidence, and the em
• Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher
  807 F.2d 345· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that injured parties have independent standing in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer, and their rights are not merely derivative of the insured's rights, especially when the insurer initiated the action.
• Zimmerman v. N. Am. Signal Co.
  704 F.2d 347· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the defendant did not meet the statutory definition of an "employer" under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as it did not have twenty or more employees for each work
• Morgan v. Union Metal Mfg.
  757 F.2d 792· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellant did not timely appeal the judgment on the merits because the notice of appeal was filed after the time limit expired following the order dismissing the complaint, even though attorneys' fees were still pending. The court affirmed the award of att
• McCARTHY v. Manson
  714 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 40×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the state waived its right to raise the speedy trial exhaustion issue by failing to object to the magistrate's recommendation and consenting to the entry of judgment.
• Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. OF NEW York v. Third Nat'l Bank OF Hampden Cnty.
  545 F.2d 758· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Morgan's motion to amend the interest order was untimely under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a), 59(e), and 60(b).
• Elias v. Ford Motor Co.
  734 F.2d 463· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to amend its judgment after it was affirmed on appeal, and that the plaintiff's motions to amend were untimely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Jenkins v. S. David Anton, PA
  922 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-29 ·cited 38×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the employee's motions for relief, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial or amendment of judgment based on newly discovered evidence or strategic litigation choices.
• Meral Smith v. Evans
  853 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 38×
  An untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Rayford v. Pryor, Jr.
  769 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appeal from the dismissal was untimely and that the denial of the motion to retain, treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, was not an abuse of discretion due to untimeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
• Harcon Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.
  746 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-12 ·cited 38×
  A timely motion to amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) nullifies any previously filed notice of appeal, requiring a new notice of appeal to be filed after the motion is decided to confer appellate jurisdiction. The court lacks jurisdiction if no new notice is filed.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gaddis
  733 F.2d 1373· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the district court's findings of discrimination and award of damages were supported by the record and applicable law.
• COX v. Flood
  683 F.2d 330· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-15 ·cited 38×
  Judgments finally disposing of the merits are appealable even if attorney's fees are undecided.
• Glass v. Pfeffer
  657 F.2d 252· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an appeal is timely if filed within 30 days of the final order deciding all issues, including attorneys' fees, and that attorneys' fees cannot be assessed against counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 without notice and a hearing.
• Loctite Corp. v. Fel-Pro, Inc.
  667 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1981-05-15 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the patent infringement suit and the award of attorney's fees, but remanded for a redetermination of the fee amount due to insufficient justification.
• Penland v. Warren Cnty. Jail
  759 F.2d 524· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-10 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a post-judgment motion for attorney's fees tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal and that the petition for leave to appeal was timely filed. The court also established standards for granting petitions for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(5).
• Sanders v. Clemco Indus. & Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  862 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 36×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the appeal of the summary judgment was untimely because the motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period, but the appeal of the denial of that motion was timely. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
• Manny Berger v. Heckler
  771 F.2d 1556· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Secretary's arguments regarding mootness and nonparty enforcement were without merit, and affirmed the district court's orders, with a modification to the amendment concerning the promulgation of regulations.
• Application for Issuance of Order Requiring the United States Env't Prot. Agency to Produce Dr. Thomas Spittler to Testify by Videotape Deposition. Appeal of SUN Pipe Line Co.
  831 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration, as the appellant failed to present a timely or substantiated claim for judicial review of the agency's decision.
• Kurkowski v. Volcker
  819 F.2d 201· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 34×
  The district court had jurisdiction to impose sanctions under Rule 11 even after a voluntary dismissal, and the sanctions were appropriate given the frivolous nature of the repeated lawsuits.
• Ohio Inns, Inc. v. NYE
  542 F.2d 673· 6th Cir.· 1976-10-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) failed to state a cause of action, and the state department was immune from suit.
• Safeway Stores v. Fannan
  308 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-11 ·cited 34×
  A trial court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) on its own motion after a defendant moves for a directed verdict, but such dismissal must be based on judicial discretion, not arbitrary choice, and the record must support the decision to dismiss without prejudice.
• Hegger v. Green
  646 F.2d 22· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 33×
  The court should reverse the judgment against Dr. Green and remand for a new trial on valid claims, as increasing his liability based on impermissible grounds is unjust.
• Waddie Jusino v. Zayas
  875 F.2d 986· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 32×
  A timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the time for appeal, and a district court's error in assessing timeliness due to a clerk's mistake can be corrected, allowing a subsequent appeal to be valid. Double damages under specific Puerto Rico statutes are barred by Eleventh Amendment immu
• Campbell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  726 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellants' notice of appeal was untimely and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Finch v. City OF Vernon
  845 F.2d 256· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the City of Vernon's motion for reconsideration was a Rule 59(e) motion, which tolled the time for filing appeals, and that jurisdiction was proper over all appeals, including those filed prematurely by pro se litigants.
• Reverend W. Eugene Scott v. Evelle J. Younger
  739 F.2d 1464· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-14 ·cited 31×
  The district court properly denied motions to vacate and reconsider because it lacked jurisdiction due to untimeliness and the pending appeal, and the appeal itself is frivolous.
• Kassman v. The Am. Univ. Appeal of Lloyd Ultan
  546 F.2d 1029· D.C. Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 31×
  A settlement payment for the same loss for which a jury later awards damages must be credited against the judgment to prevent unjust enrichment.
• Chastain v. Kelley
  510 F.2d 1232· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-02 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting an expungement order without a hearing on the merits, particularly when the government belatedly opposed the motion, raising factual questions about the necessity of expungement.
• Sack v. LOW
  478 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Massachusetts court's order, amended to clarify it was not an adjudication on the merits, removed the res judicata bar to the New York action. The court also found that the New York borrowing statute's application was not definitively established by the re
• United States v. Ciro Gargano
  826 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 30×
  A pending motion for reconsideration of a district court's ruling nullifies any notice of appeal filed before the motion is decided, requiring a new notice of appeal after the motion is resolved.
• Clark v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  785 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that res judicata barred claims arising from conduct prior to the state court judgment, but not claims arising from subsequent conduct.
• Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc.
  780 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the employer's removal of the employee's breach of contract claim was proper because the claim, despite being artfully pleaded, actually arose under federal tax law. The court affirmed the dismissal of both federal and state tax withholding claims and the awar
• Jensen v. Stangel
  762 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing defendants because the plaintiff's civil rights action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• AIR Line Stewards & Stewardesses Ass'n, Local 550, TWU, AFL-CIO v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  763 F.2d 875· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the settlement agreement is ambiguous regarding retroactive retirement credit and does not require American Airlines to provide it.
• Samuelu Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co.
  718 F.2d 955· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to make a disciplinary fee award after a notice of appeal had been filed.
• W. Transp. Co. v. E. I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co.
  682 F.2d 1233· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a tariff's unambiguous terms must be enforced, and a negligent mistake by a party is not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
• Lyell Theatre Corp. & Martina Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp.
  682 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
• The Comm'rs OF Highways OF the Towns OF Annawan v. United States
  684 F.2d 443· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 30×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to this case because the Commissioners, as governmental subdivisions, do not qualify as 'parties' under the Act, and the EAJA's effective date clause was not met. Furthermore, other statutory and equitable grounds for attorney
• United States v. Ford
  650 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 30×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The appeal from the denial of the motion to intervene is moot because the underlying summons enforcement proceeding was dismissed, and the appellants are not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as they were not prevailing parties.
• Butler v. Pearson
  636 F.2d 526· D.C. Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the case under Rule 60(b) constituted an abuse of discretion, reversing the denial and ordering the case reinstated.
• Backlund v. Barnhart
  778 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 29×
  State officials are immune from damage suits for actions taken regarding foster parents' religious exercise of discipline if the constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the conduct.
• Huff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. & Elizabeth Huff
  675 F.2d 119· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-13 ·cited 29×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the 1966 amendments to the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI) abolished the 'manifest intent' test for determining beneficiaries, and that a motion for reconsideration based on inconsistent or non-newly discovered evidence was properly denied.
• World OF Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co.
  756 F.2d 1467· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a vertical conspiracy to maintain resale prices is illegal per se, and that sufficient evidence existed to send the Sherman Act claim against La-Z-Boy to the jury. However, insufficient evidence existed to support the claim against Montgomery Ward and Mauldin.
• Yaretsky v. Blum
  592 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 28×
  A premature notice of appeal filed while a Rule 59(e) motion is pending will be treated as timely if no prejudice to the appellee occurs. Federal regulations require state agencies, not healthcare facilities, to provide notice of transfer or benefit termination.
• Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co.
  814 F.2d 1127· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 27×
  The court held that VALIC's fixed annuity is an exempt insurance product under the Securities Act of 1933 and not an employee benefit plan under ERISA, affirming summary judgment on these claims. It reversed dismissal of conspiracy claims related to ERISA and the Securities Act,
• Mar. Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank
  959 F.2d 1194· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 26×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The New Jersey district court retained subject matter jurisdiction over claims related to a bankruptcy case filed in another district, and its proceedings were not automatically voided by the bankruptcy filing.
• Floyd v. Laws
  929 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on qualified immunity was not an abuse of discretion, and that a jury's answer to a verdict question, given in violation of explicit instructions, is surplusage and must be disregarded.
• Barnett v. Petro-Tex Chem. Corp.
  893 F.2d 800· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Broughton plaintiffs' notice of appeal was effective only for Robert H. Broughton, and the Barnett plaintiffs' notice was a nullity. The court reversed summary judgment for the defendants on the contract claims, finding that the sale of the company constit