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

• United States v. MT. Vernon Mem'l Ests., Inc.
  734 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the unconditional voluntary dismissal of the government's action was a final judgment, and the companies' subsequent motion to reinstate was properly denied as no cause of action remained for them to reinstate.
• Loyd v. Loyd
  731 F.2d 393· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the administrator's actions did not constitute state action, and due process claims were satisfied by proper notice and opportunity to
• Myles S. Young v. Powell
  729 F.2d 563· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff who voluntarily stipulates to a dismissal of their case after settling all disputed issues, including attorney's fees, cannot later claim to be a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• In re Busick
  719 F.2d 922· 7th Cir.· 1983-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the denial of the motion to alter or amend the judgment, and that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment.
• Spurgeon v. DELTA Steamship Lines
  387 F.2d 358· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The court should have remanded for specific findings on the computation of pre-judgment interest awarded in an admiralty action.
• Lenore Foman v. Davis
  292 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1961-06-26 ·cited 8×
  A second notice of appeal, filed after a motion for leave to amend a complaint, does not bring the original judgment of dismissal before the appellate court if the intent to appeal the original judgment cannot be reasonably inferred.
• Leonard v. Astrue
  487 F. Supp. 2d 1333· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to elicit a reasonable explanation for the conflict between the Vocational Expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles regarding the plaintiff's ability to perform past relevant work as a telemarketer.
• Ramos v. Boehringer Manheim Corp.
  896 F. Supp. 1213· S.D. Fla.· 1994-09-30 ·cited 7×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial or amended judgment, finding that stare decisis does not bind one district court to the findings of another, and that Rule 59 motions cannot be used to relitigate issues.
• Parsons v. Honeywell
  929 F.2d 901· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge believes New York courts would not impose liability on manufacturers for unforeseeable product misuse, disagreeing with the majority's remand for trial on the plaintiff's claim against Honeywell.
• Nat'l Metal Finishing Co., Inc. v. Barclaysamerican/Commercial, Inc.
  899 F.2d 119· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 7×
  A district court has the power under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) and 59(e) to amend its findings and reverse its prior judgment, and such reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Simon v. United States
  891 F.2d 1154· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 7×
  The United States waived its defense under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act by failing to raise it in a timely manner before the district court, thus the trial court did not err in denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment.
• Fromson v. Citiplate, Inc.
  886 F.2d 1300· Fed. Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the patent claims were valid and infringed, awarding damages and attorney fees, and holding individual officers personally liable. The court also affirmed the criticism of counsel's discovery conduct.
• Lewis v. United States Postal Serv.
  840 F.2d 712· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 7×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely post-judgment motion is ineffective, and a new notice of appeal must be filed after the motion is denied.
• Steinhoff v. Harris
  698 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 7×
• Natacha Jean-Francois v. The City of N. Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that the prior dismissal of Title VII claims may have been based on a misapprehension of the statutory authority required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue against a governmental entity.
• United States v. F.E.B. Corp.
  52 F.4th 916· 11th Cir.· 2022-11-01 ·cited 6×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The Eleventh Circuit considered whether Wisteria Island, created by the United States through dredging operations in Key West Harbor in the 1920s and 1940s, fell within the Submerged Lands Act's exception for lands "filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States
• Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  105 La. 741· M.D. Fla.· 2018-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that entering judgment for the plaintiff on her retaliation claim was a manifest error of law because the jury found she suffered no damages, which is a required element of the claim. The court granted the defendant's motion to amend the judgment.
• Wainwright v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  537 F.3d 1282· 11th Cir.· 2007-11-13 ·cited 6×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  Anthony Wainwright, a death row inmate, filed a federal habeas corpus petition six days after the statute of limitations expired under the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Wainwright was
• Reyher v. Champion Int'l Corp.
  975 F.2d 483· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that motions for liquidated damages and prejudgment interest filed more than two months after judgment were untimely under Rule 59, but the motion for attorney's fees was not subject to Rule 59's time limit. The court affirmed the jury's verdict on the merits but r
• Barrett v. United States
  965 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 6×·via Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the motion to vacate, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief or an evidentiary hearing on his claims.
• Vild v. Visconsi
  956 F.2d 560· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that the predicate acts were sufficiently related to meet the continuity requirement for a RICO claim.
• CTC Imports and Exports v. Nigerian Petroleum Corp.
  951 F.2d 573· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Aham was not a proper appellant, Tache's appeal from the denial of his reconsideration motion should be granted, and CTC's sanctions were proper.
• Justine Realty Co. v. Am. Nat'l CAN Co.
  945 F.2d 1044· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 6×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that Justine's post-judgment motion for attorney fees was not a request for fees attributable to the case, and therefore did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Faysound Ltd. v. Falcon JET Corp. Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc.
  940 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed before the district court's final judgment became effective, and no new notice was filed thereafter.
• Charpentier v. Godsil
  937 F.2d 859· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Dr. Lewis was immune under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act for injuries resulting from his failure to prescribe further treatment for Charpentier's mental illness, as the Act grants immunity for 'failing to prescribe' and the proviso regarding negligence in pre
• Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc.
  933 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the Teals' motions to set aside the settlement agreement because they were untimely and lacked a basis under Rule 60(b).
• Toscano v. Chandris, S.A.
  934 F.2d 383· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that defendants waived their objections to prejudgment interest by failing to raise them properly in the district court and that the issue of interest on future damages was not properly before the appellate court due to procedural failures.
• Rivera v. Puerto RICO Tel. Co.
  921 F.2d 393· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reversing its prior order allowing amendment of the notice of appeal, and affirmed the denial of the motion to extend time to appeal.
• In re Sharon Steel Corp. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
  918 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 6×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the district court to rule on ARCO's motion to reconsider, as the district court's inaction constituted an abdication of judicial power and frustrated appellate jurisdiction.
• Midland W. Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  911 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FDIC's motion to reform the agreed judgment was timely filed and should have been granted because the judgment did not reflect the parties' mutual intent.
• Alerte v. McGINNIS
  898 F.2d 69· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's notice of appeal was ineffective because it was filed before the district court formally entered its order denying the state's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
• Boryan v. United States
  884 F.2d 767· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the taxpayers' refund was limited by the statute of limitations and that the district court did not err in denying their motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence.
• Bodin v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  877 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was invalid because it was filed before the district court ruled on a timely Rule 59(e) motion to amend the complaint, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
• Jose R.E. Martinez v. Lewis Sullivan, M.D.
  874 F.2d 751· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is a nullity, requiring dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Everson D. Smith v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc.
  868 F.2d 1469· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate based on Rule 60(b) but remanded for the district court to consider the Rule 59(e) claims.
• Barr Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.
  867 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a district court might retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions after a stipulated dismissal, Abbott's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was properly denied due to its conduct lulling Barr into a false sense of security and its delay in seeking sanctions.
• Buffalo v. Sunn
  854 F.2d 1158· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in resolving a factual dispute regarding 'cause' for a procedural default based solely on conflicting affidavits, and therefore, a remand for an evidentiary hearing is required.
• Trinity Carton Co., Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  816 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Trinity's Rule 60(b) motion because the appeal of the underlying judgment was untimely, and the motion itself lacked the requisite equities for relief.
• Sine v. Local NO. 992
  790 F.2d 1095· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of certain post-trial motions is ineffective, and the district court erred in deeming pending motions moot due to a premature appeal.
• Arceneaux v. Merrill Lynch
  767 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the district court's rulings, finding substantial evidence supported the churning claim, punitive damages were not excessive, and the awards for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest were proper.
• Ced's Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  745 F.2d 1092· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EPA had statutory authority under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act to inspect and copy business records of any person subject to the Act's requirements, regardless of whether the EPA had previously required those records to be maintained. The court also
• Lusted v. SAN Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist.
  741 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The School District's appeal is dismissed for untimeliness, and Lusted's appeal is affirmed in part, reversing and remanding only the denial of Title VII back pay for a specific period.
• Lewis v. United States
  555 F.2d 1360· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the denial of the § 2255 motion due to an untimely notice of appeal, and affirmed the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion.
• Moore v. ST. Louis Music Supply Co., Inc.
  526 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion to reconsider tolls the time for appeal, but the appeal was premature due to the lack of a separate judgment document.
• Burkett v. Shell OIL Co.
  487 F.2d 1308· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it was not compelled to dismiss the appeal and should have addressed the merits.
• United States v. Moats
  961 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not shield Pemex from Repsa's third-party complaint because the cause of action is not sufficiently connected to Pemex's commercial activity in the United States.
• Tr. Co. Bank v. United States Gypsum Co.
  950 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Mississippi statute of repose barred the plaintiff's claims, thus affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Fincher v. Keller Indus.
  905 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 5×
  A motion for costs, even if mislabeled as a Rule 59(e) motion, does not toll the time for filing an appeal because it is collateral to the merits of the judgment.
• Luc Chery v. Bowman
  901 F.2d 1053· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's contacts with Florida were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, and the denial of the motion to alter the judgment was not an abuse of discretion.
• In re Saez v. Saez
  721 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-22 ·cited 5×
  The Court of Appeals held that the automatic stay terminated upon the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition, and therefore the subsequent sale of the debtor's house did not violate the stay, invalidating the damages award.