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

• Landstrom v. Ill. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs.
  892 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims because the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and the pendent state law claims were properly dismissed.
• Al-Hakim Allah v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  871 F.2d 887· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's opening brief could be construed as a timely notice of appeal because the district court failed to enter a separate judgment, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's dismissal of the appellant'
• Migda Rodriguez-Antuna v. Chase Manhattan Bank Corp.
  871 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment was untimely under Rule 59(e), and even if considered under Rule 60(b), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
• Aurelio Echevarria-Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-Chapel
  849 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal from the default judgment was untimely, but the appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was timely, and that the back pay award was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
  807 F.2d 155· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-12 ·cited 26×
  A notice of appeal from a judgment on the merits must be filed within the prescribed time after entry of that judgment, even if attorney's fees are pending, and this rule applies in diversity cases.
• Ctr. FOR Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  781 F.2d 935· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction without considering transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
• Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co.
  728 F.2d 943· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a motion to correct pre-judgment interest under Rule 60(b)(1) was untimely due to lack of diligence, but post-judgment interest should be awarded at the rate of 9 percent per annum under Illinois law.
• The Bank OF Cal., N.A. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
  709 F.2d 1174· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 26×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  An order that modifies a final judgment, even if labeled as clarification, is an appealable final order, and the district court did not err in correcting its prior judgment to reflect its intent that the dismissal of the pendent state law claim was without prejudice.
• Gilmore v. Salt Lake Community Action Program
  710 F.2d 632· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 26×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that the termination of employment was neither federal nor state action, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the decision was attributable to a governmental policy or rule, despite the agency's governmental funding and the presence of public officials on it
• A.D. Weiss Lithograph Co., Inc. v. Ill. Adhesive Prods. Co.
  705 F.2d 249· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 26×
  A post-judgment motion filed within 10 days, even if captioned as a motion to reconsider, can be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if its substance seeks to alter or amend the judgment.
• PRC Harris, Inc. v. The Boeing Co.
  700 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a plaintiff's attempt to amend a prior judgment to 'without prejudice' after an adverse ruling in another jurisdiction is ineffective.
• Lieberman v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  315 F.2d 403· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-02 ·cited 26×
  An amendment to a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) for clerical mistakes does not restart the time for appeal, but a district court may grant an extension for excusable neglect under Rule 73(a) in unique circumstances where a party reasonably misunderstands th
• Rivera v. M/T Fossarina
  840 F.2d 152· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was untimely because the Rule 59(e) motion, which could have tolled the appeal period, was not properly served within the required timeframe. The denial of the Rule 60(b)(2) motion was affirmed.
• Gordon v. Heimann
  715 F.2d 531· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that motions for attorneys' fees are not governed by the ten-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and should be considered timely if filed within a reasonable period after judgment.
• Thomas v. Farmville Mfg. Co., Inc.
  705 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 25×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.
  697 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking the plaintiff's motion to reconsider, but this error was harmless. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding the statute of limitations barred the claims.
• Dale Elecs., Inc. v. R. C. L. Elecs., Inc.
  488 F.2d 382· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 25×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court affirmed the invalidity of several patents for obviousness and failure to disclose the best mode, reversed the dismissal of a counterclaim, and affirmed judgments on unfair competition and fees.
• VAN Skiver v. United States
  952 F.2d 1241· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, as it did not present grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
• Bank Leumi Le-Israel v. LEE
  928 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment but vacated the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for recalculation.
• Kraus v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  899 F.2d 1360· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the 'unique circumstances' exception does not apply to excuse an untimely notice of appeal when the attorney's failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration was due to miscalculation of time limits and failure to update address, rather than solely relian
• Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc.
  891 F.2d 886· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 24×
  A motion for reconsideration of a remittitur order, which significantly alters the judgment, qualifies as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59, thereby tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Limerick v. Greenwald
  749 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding post-judgment motions untimely and the stigmatization claim without merit due to available state procedures. Sanctions were imposed against counsel.
• Hairline Creations, Inc. v. Kefalas
  664 F.2d 652· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-20 ·cited 24×
  A postjudgment motion for attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act's "exceptional cases" provision is a motion to alter or amend the judgment governed by Rule 59(e), not a motion for costs under Rule 54(d).
• Miller v. Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec. Coop., Inc.
  653 F.2d 1378· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court properly dismissed the employer to preserve diversity jurisdiction, affirming the jury's allocation of fault.
• Flett v. W. A. Alexander & Co.
  302 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1962-04-24 ·cited 24×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) from a final judgment dismissing the action.
• Randolph v. Randolph
  D.D.C.· 1952-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant's motion to vacate an order denying a prior motion to alter judgment did not toll the time for appeal under Rule 73(a).
• McCOWAN v. Sears
  908 F.2d 1099· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 23×
  The court reversed the denial of Dean Witter's motion for a stay pending arbitration, holding that the claims against Dean Witter in McCowan II were referable to arbitration under the parties' agreement. The court also exercised pendent jurisdiction to review Sears' appeal.
• Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp.
  885 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds, the dismissal should be without prejudice and conditioned on the defendant submitting to Saudi Arabian jurisdiction.
• Krause v. R.O. Bennett, Jr.
  887 F.2d 362· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 23×
  A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their actions did not violate the plaintiff's rights, and the warrant application was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence
• Godwin v. The Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  806 F.2d 1290· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration because the issues raised should have been addressed in a timely direct appeal from the original dismissal order.
• Vareka Invs., N.V. v. Am. Inv. Props., Inc.
  724 F.2d 907· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and correctly granted summary judgment on liability and awarded damages, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Conley v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Grenada Cnty. Hosp.
  707 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 23×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that a hospital employee guidebook can create a property interest in continued employment, and that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to rebut charges, but the specific application varies by individual circumstances.
• Md. Tuna Corp. v. The MS Benares
  429 F.2d 307· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-02 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the dismissal of the libel and civil action was erroneous because it prematurely invalidated the maritime attachment and garnishment proceeding, and that the relationship between the Japanese parent and New York subsidiary warranted further investigation for j
• Bettye Hartz and Carroll Hartz v. Friedman
  919 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a RICO claim because the alleged predicate acts lacked the necessary relationship and continuity to form a pattern, and affirmed the district court's dismissal and sanctions.
• Jack Krause and Eugene v. Rankin
  827 F.2d 346· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims against Perryman and Reichwein, finding no triable issue of fact regarding Reichwein's withdrawal from the alleged conspiracy and upholding the dismissal of the securities act claim.
• Aubin v. Fudala
  782 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 22×
  A plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on a state law negligence claim from the date suit is filed, and attorney fees under § 1988 should be awarded based on the practical extent of success, not solely on the ratio of damages awarded on civil rights claims to total damag
• Frazier v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF Nw. Miss. Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  765 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Lifetron's personnel decisions were not state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim, but reversed the dismissal of the § 504 Rehabilitation Act claim, finding Lifetron was a program benefiting from federal financial assistance.
• Cruz v. W.B. "Bill" Hauck
  762 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying supplemental attorney's fees for defending the original fee claim and complying with court orders, and that its findings were insufficient to deny the motion as untimely.
• Venen v. Honorable Charles C. Sweet
  758 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 22×
  A district court is divested of jurisdiction over aspects of a case involved in an appeal, and cannot grant a motion for reconsideration while the appeal is pending, unless specific exceptions apply.
• Rosewitz v. Patience Latting
  689 F.2d 175· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the city's grievance procedure, which denied an employee the right to an attorney, confrontation, and cross-examination, did not violate procedural due process, but the denial of the defendant's motion for attorney's fees without a hearing was an error.
• LEE v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  592 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-03 ·cited 22×
  The district court erred in using Rule 60(a) to amend a judgment to add prejudgment interest, as this rule applies only to clerical mistakes, not substantive legal errors.
• In re Branding Iron Steak House v. Richmond
  536 F.2d 299· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 22×
  A motion to reconsider a judgment tolls the time for filing an appeal, and mere undercapitalization of a corporation, without more, is insufficient grounds to subordinate a creditor's claim.
• United States v. Tindle
  522 F.2d 689· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 22×
  Filing a DeCoster motion for a new trial constitutes 'special circumstances' permitting consideration of a § 2255 motion during a direct appeal, making the subsequent notice of appeal timely.
• Formby v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank
  904 F.2d 627· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in awarding relief beyond the jury's back pay award, in awarding liquidated damages for a willful violation of the ADEA, or in awarding attorneys' fees, as the Bank failed to properly preserve these issues for appeal.
• Lucas v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  729 F.2d 1300· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 21×
  A motion concerning only costs, even if mislabeled as a Rule 59 motion, does not render a prior notice of appeal ineffective under F.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).
• Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya
  926 F.2d 103· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-27 ·cited 20×
• Tanker Mgmt., Inc. v. Bruce C. Brunson, M.D.
  918 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 20×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict, awarding costs and attorney's fees, or correcting the judgment, and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 does not preempt Florida Statute § 45.061.
• Adams-Arapahoe Joint Sch. Dist. NO. 28-J v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  891 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 20×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that defective design/construction is a covered risk under an all-risk policy, and the corrosion exclusion does not apply if the corrosion results from a covered risk. However, the jury instruction on the burden of proof for fortuitousness was erroneous and prejudi
• Staffer v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc.
  878 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred enjoining state court proceedings, New York law did not permit setoffs for collateral source payments against contribution awards, and attorney fees were not warranted.
• Castle v. Cohen
  840 F.2d 173· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of specific performance for the stock sale agreement but vacated the dismissal of the RICO counterclaim due to procedural error.