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

• Lupo v. R. Rowland & Co.
  857 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions and that the sanctions were properly imposed based on the overall conduct of the litigation.
• Anderson v. Deere & Co.
  852 F.2d 1244· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an amendment adding a party relates back under Rule 15(c) if the party knew or should have known it would be sued but for a mistake concerning identity within the limitations period, regardless of subsequent delay in filing the amendment. The court also held t
• Roudybush v. Zabel
  813 F.2d 173· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 11×
  Private parties acting unlawfully under a constitutional state statute, even with state official assistance, do not satisfy the 'state policy' component of the 'fair attribution' test for section 1983 'under color of state law' claims.
• Holland v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  941 F.3d 1285· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly dismissed Holland's third federal habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was a successive petition that failed to obtain prior authorization from the court of appeals.
• Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc.
  991 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual employees can be held liable under the ADEA if they participated in discriminatory termination decisions.
• Lopez v. CORPORACIÓN Azucarera de Puerto RICO
  938 F.2d 1510· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 10×
  A post-judgment motion questioning the legal correctness of a judgment, even if labeled Rule 60(b), is treated as a Rule 59 motion, thus tolling the appeal period. The employer bears the burden to prove the applicability of the FLSA harvest exemption.
• Lomax v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's discretion to file a nolle prosequi was not abused, and double jeopardy did not attach before the jury was sworn. The appeal was timely filed.
• Billups v. Methodist Hosp. OF Chicago
  922 F.2d 1300· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext for racial discrimination, and thus summary judgment for the employer was appropriate.
• Wilbur Hilst, M.D. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  874 F.2d 725· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 10×
  A Bivens action for alleged due process violations is not available when Congress has provided meaningful safeguards or remedies, even if those remedies do not fully compensate for damages.
• Kaercher v. The Trs. OF Health & Hosps. OF the City OF Boston, Inc.
  834 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's notice of appeal was untimely, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to vacate or reconsider the dismissal.
• Felipa Monreal Rodriguez v. Handy
  802 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an appeal from an order granting attorney's fees without calculating the amount is premature and nonappealable when the merits of the case have been settled.
• Skagerberg v. State OF Okla.
  797 F.2d 881· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a combined motion for Rule 60 relief and notice of appeal, when the motion is properly construed as a timely Rule 59(e) motion, renders the notice of appeal premature and ineffective.
• Quartana v. Utterback
  789 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The notice of appeal was timely filed, and the plaintiff stated valid claims for libel and tortious interference with contractual relations.
• Callahan v. Schultz
  783 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court was justified in quashing the IRS summons due to the government's failure to produce ordered exhibits, but improperly denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment as untimely.
• United States v. ONE Remington 12 Gauge Shotgun
  709 F.2d 1468· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on untimely post-trial motions, rendering the subsequent notice of appeal invalid.
• Gryar v. Odeco Drilling, Inc.
  674 F.2d 373· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended judgment after a notice of appeal had been filed and the time for post-judgment motions had expired.
• Lapeyrouse v. Texaco, Inc.
  670 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it must remand the case to determine the timeliness and basis of the motion for rehearing, as this affects whether the notice of appeal was valid.
• Conerly v. Flower
  410 F.2d 941· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a trial court has the discretion to vacate a consent judgment procured by fraud and enter judgment on a jury's true verdict, rather than requiring a new trial.
• Dr. Frederick Yates, M.D. v. Behrend
  280 F.2d 64· D.C. Cir.· 1960-05-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a second motion for reconsideration, filed after the denial of a timely initial motion, does not restart the time for filing an appeal from the original judgment. The appeal from the denial of the second motion is also dismissed as it would countenance dilator
• Walters v. State of Ariz.
  2008 WL 4459085· M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-23 ·cited 9×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because no grounds were presented to warrant it.
• Jennings v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  108 F.4th 1299· 11th Cir.· 2024-07-22 ·cited 9×
  A second-in-time federal habeas petition raising Brady and Giglio claims is considered a second or successive petition subject to statutory restrictions, and the district court correctly dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the petitioner failed to obtain pri
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Huff
  758 F. Supp. 2d 1288· S.D. Fla.· 2010-12-17 ·cited 9×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court amended its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law based on a motion for reconsideration, incorporating details from a seven-day bench trial and subsequent filings.
• Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South
  975 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 9×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the author is concurring and discussing the difficulty of classifying causes of action.
• Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez
  922 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 9×
  Postjudgment interest accrues from the date of the judgment entered after a retrial ordered due to insufficient evidence, not from the date of the original vacated judgment.
• Rosen v. Rucker
  905 F.2d 702· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that defendants' failure to make a written settlement offer under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 makes them liable for delay damages, regardless of plaintiffs' settlement demands or alleged trial delays.
• Morley v. Cohen
  888 F.2d 1006· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a settlement with a codefendant must reduce the judgment against the remaining defendant, and that attorneys' fees requests in RICO actions are not subject to the ten-day limit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings-Subpoena to State Attorney's Off. Thomas H. Greene
  832 F.2d 554· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a grand jury proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), but the Perlman exception allows appeal of an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena when a third party asserts a privilege. However, Florida law
• Bordallo v. Reyes
  763 F.2d 1098· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 9×
  The Guam Visitors Bureau, established as a public corporation under Public Law 17-32, is not an agency or instrumentality of the government, and its structure does not contravene the Organic Act of Guam.
• William Skillings & Assocs. v. Cunard Transp., Ltd.
  594 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 9×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that a release executed by a partnership did not satisfy a judgment entered in favor of individual partners, and the judgment debtors' attempt to have the judgment marked satisfied was untimely.
• S. Coast K9 v. Heiser
  2024 WL 4275221· M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because the failure to meet deadlines was not due to excusable neglect, especially given multiple attorneys were involved.
• Emergency Recovery, Inc. v. Hufnagle
  77 F.4th 1317· 11th Cir.· 2023-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that a motion to alter or amend a voluntary dismissal order under Rule 41(a)(2) is a proper Rule 59(e) motion, thus tolling the time to appeal, and that the district court erred in finding otherwise.
• Herzog Contracting Corp. v. McGOWEN Corp.
  976 F.2d 1062· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-01 ·cited 8×
  A Rule 59(e) motion, even if labeled nunc pro tunc, tolls the time for appeal if it is substantive, and parol evidence is admissible to show a promissory note was a sham not intended to be enforceable.
• Labrie v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  976 F.2d 779· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-30 ·cited 8×
  A district court may retain jurisdiction pending a sentence four remand and enter a final judgment for EAJA purposes after remand proceedings are completed.
• Abbs v. Sullivan
  963 F.2d 918· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a procedural rule is not judicially reviewable unless sanctions have been imposed under it.
• Schake v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp. Severance Plan FOR Salaried Emps.
  960 F.2d 1187· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the unliquidated award of attorney fees, but had jurisdiction over the final decision regarding prejudgment interest.
• Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz
  945 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment of dismissal, as the plaintiffs failed to respond to a show cause order and did not properly appeal the underlying judgment.
• Woods v. City OF Mich. City
  940 F.2d 275· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 8×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  A state statute creating a right to release does not, by itself, create a federal constitutional right to a pre-deprivation hearing when that right is allegedly violated.
• Lockhart v. Sullivan
  925 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution and in denying the motion to reinstate under Rule 59(e) due to the plaintiff's pattern of delay and inconsistent explanations.
• Taumby v. United States
  919 F.2d 69· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Rule 60(b) motion does not toll the time for appeal, the notice of appeal was timely filed, and the court has jurisdiction.
• Keith v. Truck Stops Corp. OF Am.
  909 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest is a Rule 59(e) motion, which must be filed within 10 days of judgment, and that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a jury's finding of negligence.
• Jurgens v. McKASY
  905 F.2d 382· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 8×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion, including a motion for prejudgment interest, is ineffective.
• Ayers v. City OF Richmond
  895 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on an attorney for failing to attend a settlement conference and that collateral estoppel barred the client's civil rights claims based on Fourth Amendment violations decided in state suppre
• Taylor v. Mace Knapp
  871 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 8×
• McMAHON v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.
  870 F.2d 1073· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for summary judgment and directed verdict, admitting statistical expert testimony, reducing awards by retirement benefits, or denying prejudgment interest.
• Edwards v. Jewish Hosp. OF ST. Louis
  855 F.2d 1345· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 8×
  An employer violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981 if race is a substantial or motivating factor in a discharge, even if the employer would have made the same decision absent discrimination; however, the employer may avoid reinstatement or back pay by proving the same decision would have been
• Craig v. Lynaugh
  846 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 8×
  A motion to vacate a judgment, even if labeled under Rule 60(b), is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if it challenges the judgment's correctness and is filed within 10 days. Such a motion, if timely, nullifies a previously filed notice of appeal, requiring a new notice after the mo
• Archer v. Lynaugh
  821 F.2d 1094· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's belated appeal is precluded by strict appellate rules regarding timely notice of appeal and the effect of post-judgment motions.
• Stauber v. Kieser
  810 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that despite the untimeliness of a Rule 59 motion, unique circumstances justified hearing the appeal to avoid hardship.
• In re Frigitemp Corp. Lawson F. Bernstein in Bankr. of Frigitemp Corp. v. Lefrak
  781 F.2d 324· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion to amend a judgment to include prejudgment interest, when not awarded in the original judgment, is not a 'clerical mistake' correctable under Rule 60(a) if there is no clear indication the court intended to award such interest.
• Fin. Servs. Corp. OF the Midwest v. Weindruch
  764 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 8×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because the motion for reconsideration was not filed within the time limit to toll the appeal period for the preliminary injunction order.