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

• C. Roger Youmans, Jr., M.D. v. Simon
  791 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that some real estate venture interests were not securities, but one was potentially a security, and civil RICO claims should be reinstated. The denial of a motion to amend the complaint was affirmed.
• United States v. 1982 Sanger 24' Spectra Boat
  738 F.2d 1043· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking the claimants' answers and claims without notice, and that the claimants should be permitted to amend their claims to allege a property interest sufficient for standing.
• Venable v. T.J. Haislip
  721 F.2d 297· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's motion for rehearing tolled the time to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, and that the district court erred in dismissing the Rule 60(b) motion without considering whether the default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdictio
• Dutta Seshachalam v. Creighton Univ. Sch. of Med.
  545 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration, even if mislabeled, can toll the time for filing a notice of appeal if it questions the judgment's correctness. The court remanded to allow the appellant to seek nunc pro tunc acceptance of the notice of appeal.
• Lyman v. Remington Rand, Inc.
  188 F.2d 306· 2d Cir.· 1951-03-30 ·cited 20×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the appeal from the order conditionally directing payment of the special master's fee was timely, but must be dismissed for lack of finality under Rule 54(b) without a proper certificate.
• Yates v. Pinellas Hematology & Oncology, P.A.
  21 F.4th 1288· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-29 ·cited 19×
  Pinellas Hematology & Oncology violated the False Claims Act by submitting 214 fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims for laboratory tests performed at an uncertified facility while falsely certifying that the tests were conducted at a certified location. The Eleventh Circuit a
• Sinay v. The Lamson & Sessions Co.
  948 F.2d 1037· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 19×
  The court held that statements made by a corporation and its officers are not actionable under securities fraud laws if they are accompanied by sufficient cautionary language and are made in good faith, even if subsequent events prove them wrong.
• Spinar v. S.D. Bd. OF Regents
  796 F.2d 1060· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 19×
  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its original judgment and enter a new one after the time for appeal had expired.
• Williams v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied because he failed to comply with court orders and procedural rules.
• Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Corp. t/d/b/a Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  899 F.2d 1350· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the attorney's recusal motion was properly denied, but the sanctions order against him must be vacated and remanded due to insufficient notice and failure to differentiate between Rule 11 and § 1927 standards.
• Green v. Bisby
  869 F.2d 1070· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, as an untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the appeal deadline.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gen. Lines, Inc.
  865 F.2d 1555· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying reinstatement or front pay, nor in refusing to enjoin future retaliation, as the employees had relocated and hostility precluded a productive relationship, and there was no showing of continuing unlawful practices.
• Anilina Fabrique de Colorants v. Aakash Chems. & Dyestuffs, Inc.
  856 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 18×
  The district judge did not exceed her authority in granting a default judgment and refusing to set it aside, and the appellate court should not reverse such a decision.
• Beckwith Mach. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  815 F.2d 286· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court should apply the White v. New Hampshire rule consistently to all attorney's fee disputes, regardless of whether the fee obligation arises from contract, statute, or common law.
• Mabra Huff v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  799 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the original dismissal order due to an untimely notice of appeal, but it had jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for reconsideration and affirmed that denial.
• Scott v. Schmidt
  773 F.2d 160· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed Scott's civil rights suit because the defendants were immune from suit and Scott failed to state a claim.
• W. Indus., Inc. v. Newcor Canada Ltd.
  709 F.2d 16· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 18×
  A timely filed Rule 59(e) motion divests the appellate court of jurisdiction over an appeal, even if filed after the notice of appeal.
• Cosgrove v. Smith
  697 F.2d 1125· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court prematurely granted summary judgment, as the record was inadequate to determine the scope of federal authority over D.C. Code offenders and whether federal and D.C. parole standards differ.
• Edwards H. Metcalf v. Borba
  681 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 18×
  A postjudgment request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not subject to the ten-day time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or local rules governing routine costs.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. World Univ. Inc.
  978 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-22 ·cited 17×
  The FDIC, as a holder in due course of a facially valid bearer note, is entitled to enforce payment against the maker, Santa Barbara Corporation, despite claims of prior payment or defenses.
• Terra Nova Ins. Co., Ltd. v. 900 BAR
  887 F.2d 1213· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 17×
  The majority erred in holding the stay order is an appealable final order regarding the duty to defend.
• Nowicki v. United States
  536 F.2d 1171· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 17×
  A district court's "trial de novo" review under the Food Stamp Act is limited to determining the validity of the agency's administrative action, not modifying the penalty imposed if it is within statutory limits and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Temkin v. Frederick Cnty. Comm'rs
  945 F.2d 716· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the deputy sheriff's conduct during a high-speed chase did not "shock the conscience" and thus did not violate substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consequently, the county commissioners were also not liable for failure to adopt adequate policies.
• Welch v. Folsom
  925 F.2d 666· 3d Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 16×
  An order dismissing an in forma pauperis complaint for failure to serve process is a final, appealable order because the plaintiff cannot afford to cure the defect. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) tolls the time for appeal if filed within ten days, even without serv
• Offshore Prod. Contractors, Inc. v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co.
  910 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 16×
  An insurance broker's failure to procure requested insurance, coupled with misrepresentations about coverage and failure to notify the client of exclusions, constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the client later fails to pay the premium or the insurer wrongfully denies
• Dana Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. OF N. Ohio
  900 F.2d 882· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Dana sufficiently alleged mail fraud and a pattern of racketeering activity to withstand a motion to dismiss, and that leave to amend the complaint should have been granted. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a
• Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel
  851 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the district court had the power to amend its judgment, it abused its discretion by failing to expressly consider the public interest and by not ordering the Secretary to comply with his own regulations regarding tribal consultation and lease planning. T
• Eleby v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc.
  795 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, but affirmed the denial because the district court did not plainly abuse its discretion.
• Page v. Schweiker
  786 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The court should have reached the merits of the standing issue and concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the cross-program recoupment provision.
• Earnhardt v. The Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO
  744 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the evidence supported the conclusion of discriminatory discharge and that the denial of prejudgment interest and fringe benefits was not an abuse of discretion.
• Campbell v. W.R. Bowlin
  724 F.2d 484· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a post-judgment motion for attorney's fees is not a Rule 59(e) motion, thus not triggering the need for a new notice of appeal. The court also held that a directed verdict was inappropriate where credibility determinations were necessary.
• Peake v. The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Marquette
  717 F.2d 1016· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the underlying judgment because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Ezell Jones v. Dealers Tractor & Equip. Co.
  634 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not subject to the ten-day time limit for amending judgments under F.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lake Shore Land Co., Inc.
  610 F.2d 1185· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a jury trial for the equitable claim of specific performance and in dismissing the defendant's counterclaim as an omitted counterclaim filed without leave. The court also affirmed the denial of a jury trial for the cou
• Newburger v. Gross
  611 F.2d 423· 2d Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the partnership's business continued after partner withdrawals, precluding liquidation-basis accounting, and affirmed most accounting adjustments while reversing on the interest rate for prejudgment interest.
• Wilburn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. OF ST. Louis
  492 F.2d 1288· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without a justifying reason, despite the plaintiff's good faith contention of estoppel.
• St. Louis Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co.
  5 F.4th 1235· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-20 ·cited 15×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, upholding the jury's verdict and the denial of post-trial motions.
• Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Damitra Baisden
  958 F.3d 1050· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-01 ·cited 15×·via Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the insurer, finding no coverage under the FST policy because the defendants failed to establish a lease granting exclusive use rights, and properly denied a motion for reconsideration based on untimely
• Averhart v. Arrendondo
  773 F.2d 919· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 15×
  A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) nullifies a previously filed notice of appeal, requiring a new notice to be filed after the district court rules on the motion.
• Marcy Smiga v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  766 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award and its award of attorneys' fees and costs, finding that the district court had jurisdiction and that the opposition to confirmation was frivolous.
• Eames v. The City OF Logan
  762 F.2d 83· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of stigmatization and damage to his reputation were sufficient to state a claim for a liberty interest violation under § 1983, even though he failed to request a name-clearing hearing.
• Willie v. Cont'l OIL Co.
  746 F.2d 1041· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-06 ·cited 15×
  A district court is divested of jurisdiction to grant a Rule 60(b) motion once a notice of appeal has been filed, and requires leave from the appellate court to do so. The December 2, 1983 judgment was a nullity.
• Joseph F. O'Toole & Marjorie C. O'Toole v. Arlington Tr. Co.
  681 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal question and diversity jurisdiction, as the bank was not an ERISA fiduciary and the appellants failed to prove domicile in Florida.
• Rothenberg v. Sec. Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  677 F.2d 64· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 15×
  The district court retained jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney's fees filed after the notice of appeal.
• Lorna Williams v. Town OF Okoboji
  599 F.2d 238· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-11 ·cited 15×
  A prematurely filed notice of appeal will not be dismissed if the appellee shows no prejudice.
• Dealeaner Hammond v. Pub. Fin. Corp.
  568 F.2d 1362· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 15×
  The court holds that it has jurisdiction over the appeal because a timely Rule 59(e) motion tolled the time for appeal. The court affirms the district court's award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Steward v. The Atl. Ref. Co.
  235 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1956-07-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that untimely served post-judgment motions do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and thus appeals filed after the judgment but before the disposition of untimely motions are not premature.
• Fiore v. Wash. Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr.
  960 F.2d 229· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the separate document requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 applies to all appealable post-judgment orders, including denials of motions under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b) and (e), and 60(b).
• Abdul Muhammad Samaad v. City OF Dallas
  922 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 14×
  A motion for costs does not toll the time to appeal, and a notice of appeal using "et al." is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over unnamed parties.
• Associated Builders & Contractors OF La., Inc. v. The Orleans Parish Sch. Bd.
  919 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the award or in considering the timeliness of the request.