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

• Kelly v. Matlack, Inc.
  903 F.2d 978· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the jury's finding of willfulness supporting liquidated damages was supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion for JNOV.
• Durkin v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  872 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the Tax Court's decisions, finding that the taxpayers did not retain sufficient ownership interests in the films for depreciation purposes and that certain loan notes did not constitute bona fide indebtedness.
• Thomassen v. United States
  835 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the complaint prematurely, it did not deprive the plaintiff of due process. However, the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the government, and thus the contempt order based on those fees is re
• Durham v. Kelly
  810 F.2d 1500· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a motion to amend a judgment to award costs does not fall under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), thus not rendering a prior notice of appeal ineffective. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact reg
• Hicks v. S. Md. Health Sys. Agency
  805 F.2d 1165· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 14×
  The district court retained jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees and costs after the appeal was concluded, and the amount awarded was not an abuse of discretion.
• Marohnic v. Richard Walker & the Barren River Reg'l Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd.
  800 F.2d 613· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's speech exposing government fraud was protected by the First Amendment and that material issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendant made negative statements in retaliation for that speech.
• Kapco MFG. Co., Inc. v. C & O Enters., Inc.
  773 F.2d 151· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion is only permissible if the underlying order was final, as Rule 60(b) cannot be used to create appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders.
• Lapeyrouse v. Texaco, Inc.
  693 F.2d 581· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing J&K for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient contacts with Texas to satisfy due process. The court also affirmed the district court's determination that a motion for rehearing was timely filed under Rule 60(b
• Hayden v. Scott Aviation
  684 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 14×
  A motion to add mandatory delay damages under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 is a clerical correction governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), not a request to alter judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  684 F.2d 691· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 14×
  A party's "Objections to Proposed Order" that only seek to alter the form of a judgment, rather than its substantive correctness, do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).
• McLEARN v. Cowen & Co. & Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
  660 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) was not available for the substantial relief sought by the appellant.
• David v. Travisono
  621 F.2d 464· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 applies to cases pending on its enactment, and the district court erred in finding special circumstances to deny fees based on the nature of the remaining issue or its confluence with other litigation.
• Holcomb v. United States
  622 F.2d 937· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the taxpayers' promise to make monthly payments was not sufficient consideration for the government's alleged promise to allocate bankruptcy proceeds to their personal liability, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fe
• Santiago v. Corporacion de Renovacion Urbana Y Vivienda de Puerto RICO
  453 F.2d 794· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was erroneous because it was based on evidence presented solely for a temporary restraining order without proper notice, and disputed factual issues precluded summary judgment.
• United States v. Certain Land IN the City OF Paterson
  322 F.2d 866· 3d Cir.· 1963-09-24 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that a mortgagor remains liable for interest on the mortgage debt even after surrender of possession in a condemnation proceeding, and that the mortgagee's application for payment does not automatically stop the accrual of interest against the mortgagor.
• A.M. Samara v. Taylor
  38 F.4th 141· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-14 ·cited 13×·via Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiff's claim for reformation of a mortgage was barred by Alabama's ten-year statute of limitations for actions to recover land.
• Echols v. Parker
  909 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 13×
  A motion 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) and does not vitiate a previously filed notice of appeal. However, a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a supplemental attorney's fees
• Vaughter v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  817 F.2d 685· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the pilots' claims accrued in 1965 when Eastern assumed funding of the pension plan, thus barring claims under ERISA and the statute of limitations.
• Newark Branch v. Town of Harrison
  907 F.2d 1408· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court properly dismissed the original complaint for lack of standing, it erred in denying the motion for leave to amend without considering the merits of the proposed amendment.
• In re Petition of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  904 F.2d 826· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary's regulation defining substance addiction disorders is valid and not a sham to disguise non-acquiescence in circuit law, and that the district court erred in invalidating the regulation and imposing a remedial order.
• Swin Res. Sys., Inc. v. Lycoming Cnty.
  883 F.2d 245· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The operation of a landfill by Lycoming County is not protected by the market participant exception to the dormant Commerce Clause because it unduly burdens interstate commerce and is indistinguishable from prior cases limiting the exception.
• Petru v. City OF Berwyn
  872 F.2d 1359· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff's expectation of appointment to a public employment position, based on an eligibility list and past hiring practices, does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest. Furthermore, the court held that an appeal from an order deny
• Balla v. Idaho State Bd. OF Corr.
  869 F.2d 461· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly used its July 11, 1985 order as the benchmark for compliance and did not abuse its discretion in denying the prisoners' contempt motion. The court also held that the prisoners' motion for reconsideration was untimely under Rule 59(e
• Landau & Cleary, Ltd. v. Hribar Trucking, Inc.
  867 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 12×
• York v. Tate
  858 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio common law rule requiring circumstantial evidence to be irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of innocence should not be applied by federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings reviewing state criminal convictions. The federal constitutiona
• Wojan v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  851 F.2d 969· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 12×
  A district court retains inherent jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even after dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the court affirmed the denial of sanctions because the plaintiff's claims for sanctions were ultimately without merit.
• Munden v. Ultra-Alaska Assocs.
  849 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 12×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is premature and has no effect, requiring a new notice of appeal after the motion's disposition.
• Williams v. Brown & Root, Inc.
  828 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside a dismissal for failure to prosecute, as the attorney's inadvertent mistake did not constitute sufficiently unique circumstances for relief.
• Kladis v. Brezek
  823 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in altering the judgment to enter judgment for the defendants on the claim that the plaintiff was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, as no constitutional right requires such notification.
• WSM, Inc. v. Wheeler Media Servs., Inc.
  810 F.2d 113· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 12×·via Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees under the Lanham Act's "exceptional cases" provision because the defendants' continued litigation was justified by unresolved issues and jurisdictional uncertainty.
• In re Burlington Northern
  810 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of multipliers for exceptional success and risk, and the denial of interest from the decree date, but reversed the order to pay fees directly to individual attorneys and paralegals.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Campaigner Publ'ns, Inc.
  795 F.2d 226· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the contempt judgments, finding that the appellants' arguments regarding service of process were precluded by prior dismissals and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing in the final contempt appeal.
• Rodriguez v. Banco Central
  790 F.2d 172· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an order deferring class certification pending a test case is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the asserted rights are capable of vindication on appeal from a final judgment.
• Cooper v. Shumway
  780 F.2d 27· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend a complaint after a final judgment had been entered.
• Ola Irene Rivers v. Wash. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  770 F.2d 1010· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a subsequent amended judgment effectively terminated the litigation, and the notice of appeal, filed before the amended judgment, is treated as timely.
• Smith v. United States Parole Comm'n & United States Attorney Gen.
  721 F.2d 346· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's motion, though labeled under Rule 60(b), should not be recharacterized as a Rule 59(e) motion to deny his appeal when the district court did not recharacterize it and the litigant complied with the rules.
• Vreeken v. Special Agent
  718 F.2d 343· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' appeal was timely filed because their motion to amend the judgment tolled the appeal period, and that the mail cover did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. 329.73 Acres OF Land
  695 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that landowners could not use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to challenge the district courts' failure to award an interest rate higher than six percent on the difference between the government's deposit and the jury's award.
• Rooney v. United States
  694 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that post-judgment interest against the United States under 31 U.S.C. § 724a is not owed when neither party filed the judgment transcript in the GAO before the mandate of affirmance, and that a claim for attorney's fees is barred by res judicata if previously decid
• Davis v. City OF Abbeville
  633 F.2d 1161· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion despite the district court's failure to explicitly articulate the Johnson factors, as the record indicated consideration and the award was not palpably unreasonable.
• Boggs v. Dravo Corp. Appeal of Rosalie B. Peterson
  532 F.2d 897· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed because the administratrix's Rule 59(e) motion tolled the time for appeal, and that the seaman's action for maintenance and cure survives his death and allows for substitution of his legal representative.
• Krstic v. Princess Cruise Lines
  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113166· S.D. Fla.· 2010-03-31 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the Bermuda choice-of-law provision is void as against public policy, the arbitration clause remains enforceable after severance, and Jones Act claims are arbitrable.
• Colonial Bank v. Freeman (In Re Pac. Forest Prods. Corp.)
  335 B.R. 910· S.D. Fla.· 2005-10-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that motions for rehearing of an interlocutory bankruptcy order toll the time for filing a motion for leave to appeal, and that the specific legal question regarding check kiting as per se fraudulent intent presents a controlling question of law with substantial gr
• Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp.
  289 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2002-04-23 ·cited 11×
  The concurring judge believes that a plaintiff who fails to amend their complaint in the district court, despite ample opportunity and notice of deficiencies, should not be granted a remand on appeal for that purpose. The judge argues that district courts should not be required t
• Offs. Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc.
  62 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 1999-07-07 ·cited 11×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that the transaction was an oral agreement for the sale of goods with an open price term, not a joint venture, and determined a reasonable price for the goods based on market value.
• United States v. Contents OF Accounts NOS. 3034504504 & 144-07143 AT Merrill
  971 F.2d 974· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court had venue under 18 U.S.C. § 981(h) but lacked in rem jurisdiction because the res was located outside the district and no federal statute authorized nationwide service of process. The court also held Friko's motion for reargument was timely
• Annise Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry
  950 F.2d 1437· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest and strip search, the City of Los Angeles may be liable if the strip searches were conducted pursuant to an unconstitutional policy.
• McNICKLE v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.
  888 F.2d 678· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a Rule 60(a) motion to correct an omission in its judgment regarding prejudgment interest. The court found that the omission was a clerical error that could be corrected under Rule 60(a).
• Dalton v. First Interstate Bank OF Denver
  863 F.2d 702· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 11×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  A timely motion to amend a judgment, even if not explicitly styled as such, is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion, requiring a new notice of appeal after its disposition.
• Edward and Gilda Bergman v. The City OF Atl. City
  860 F.2d 560· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 11×
  An order concluding one of two consolidated cases should not be considered final and appealable.