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

• Kleckley v. State
  2022 WL 3566908· S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-02 ·cited 4×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  A resentencing on one count that does not alter the term of imprisonment or vacate the original judgment does not restart the AEDPA limitations period for undisturbed counts.
• Jules Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.
  975 F.2d 964· 3d Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 4×·via Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
  The court held that a notice of appeal must specifically designate the judgment or order being appealed, and absent such designation, appellate jurisdiction over prior, unspecified orders is barred, especially when the appellant explicitly stated they were not appealing the prior
• Knox v. The State OF Wyo.
  959 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an application for a certificate of probable cause, filed timely, can serve as a notice of appeal, but the appeal is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Brooks v. Brattleboro Mem'l Hosp.
  958 F.2d 525· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's findings of negligence causing medical expenses and pain and suffering, yet awarding damages only for medical expenses, were irreconcilably inconsistent, requiring a new trial on all issues.
• Feinstein v. Morris and Joyce Moses
  951 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely, as the district court erroneously granted a motion to enlarge the time for filing a post-judgment motion, which did not toll the appeal period. The denial of reconsideration, however,
• Howell v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  950 F.2d 343· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the district court did not err in affirming the Secretary's decision denying disability benefits.
• Barber v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co.
  936 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an untimely filed notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.
• Anderson v. Hodel
  899 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 4×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment due to an insufficiently developed record and that the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies or show immediate injury were not fatal to his claim.
• United States v. ONE Urban LOT
  882 F.2d 582· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 4×
  The appellant's notice of appeal was timely only as to the District Court's denial of her motion to vacate, and the court found no abuse of discretion in that denial.
• Obadiah Fisher v. Klein
  873 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a Rule 59(e) motion is ineffective and requires a new notice of appeal to confer jurisdiction.
• Colette A. Washington v. Patlis
  868 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's March 18 motion to vacate judgment, filed in the court of appeals, constituted a valid notice of appeal, and the EEOC's transmittal of her charge to the state agency satisfied the initial filing requirement under Title VII, making her claim tim
• J.B.N. Morris v. Homco Int'l, Inc.
  853 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the seller breached the non-competition agreement, but the buyer could not recover payments made after the breach in addition to lost profits.
• Townsend v. Terminal Packaging Co. & Pat Ryan
  853 F.2d 623· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the motion for reconsideration as untimely, regardless of whether it was treated as a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion.
• Keller v. Petsock
  849 F.2d 839· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over both appeals because the first appeal was improperly sent to the circuit court and the second appeal was untimely filed with the district court.
• Baldwin S. MOY v. Howard Univ.
  843 F.2d 1504· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the timing of a post-judgment motion, not its caption, determines whether it tolls the time for filing an appeal, provided it could properly be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and meets the timing requirements.
• White v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  840 F.2d 85· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for damages under the Privacy Act because the complaint did not allege facts demonstrating that the agency acted in a willful or intentional manner as required by the statute.
• Patterson v. Bowen
  839 F.2d 221· 4th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 4×
  Substantial evidence supports the district court's findings that the child is entitled to benefits based on the wage earner's written acknowledgment of paternity, and the court correctly interpreted the statute.
• Derks v. Dugger
  835 F.2d 778· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's premature notice of appeal was effective due to unique circumstances where the district court misled him into believing it was valid.
• RAY E. Friedman & Co. v. Jenkins
  824 F.2d 657· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's finding of fraudulent conveyance was not clearly erroneous and that the appellant could not use a post-judgment motion to introduce new issues.
• Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  824 F.2d 249· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 4×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  Persons who held B&O debentures on December 13, 1977, converted them to common stock, and subsequently sold the stock are entitled to participate in the relief granted for the securities law violation.
• Shultz v. Crowley
  802 F.2d 498· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 4×
  A judgment finally disposing of the merits of a suit is final and appealable, even if a request for statutory attorney's fees remains pending.
• Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't OF Just.
  763 F.2d 1436· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 does not divest this court of jurisdiction if a notice of appeal was filed before the Act's effective date, regardless of the appeal's initial jurisdictional validity.
• Arceneaux v. Merrill Lynch
  595 F. Supp. 171· M.D. Fla.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, or remittitur, granted plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest, and awarded attorneys' fees under the Florida Securities Act.
• Reynolds Indus., Inc. v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  741 F.2d 1385· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discount was a "customary price differential" rather than a competitive allowance, thus affirming summary judgment for the defendant.
• Kort v. W. Sur. Co.
  705 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in reconsidering its summary judgment, denying a directed verdict, and denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as there were genuine issues of material fact regarding contract supersession and interpretation.
• Harris v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc.
  659 F.2d 784· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury verdict judgment was not a final judgment because it only adjudicated part of the plaintiff's claims, and therefore, subsequent motions and appeals related to other claims were premature or should be reconsidered.
• Bacon v. Toia
  648 F.2d 801· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that certain amendments to New York's emergency assistance law denying cash aid to AFDC recipients and denying aid for loss or theft of grants violate the Equal Protection Clause, but upheld the statute against a Supremacy Clause challenge.
• Glenn v. Dallman
  635 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief regarding the Confrontation Clause claim, but remanded the jury instruction issue for reconsideration in light of a subsequent state supreme court decision.
• John Julian Wild, M.D., Ph.D. v. ST. Paul Cos., Inc.
  612 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's motion to reconsider tolled the time for filing the notice of appeal, and found no error in the district court's rulings, affirming the dismissal and summary judgment.
• Brown v. Freeman Wright
  588 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a "motion for reconsideration" coupled with supporting memoranda, when considered as a whole, can constitute a timely and sufficient motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a) if it presents grounds for relief, such as manifest error of law.
• Council FOR Emp. & Econ. Energy USE v. WHDH Corp.
  580 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Sherman Act does not apply to political activity, even if it has commercial implications, and that the district court did not err in denying motions to amend a dismissed complaint when the amendment would be futile.
• Davis v. Lane
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-14 ·cited 3×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact, and his claim for transfer to home confinement is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
• Infante v. Bank of Am. Corp.
  680 F. Supp. 2d 1298· S.D. Fla.· 2010-01-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for fraud and TILA rescission, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Yun
  208 F. Supp. 2d 1279· M.D. Fla.· 2002-06-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant's motion for a stay pending appeal is denied unless she secures a full supersedeas bond within ten days, and she is found in civil contempt for failing to comply with the prior judgment.
• C.G. Dillard v. Merrill Lynch
  961 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the arbitration clause was enforceable, claims related to criminal prosecution timeliness require remand, and certain antitrust claims were improperly dismissed.
• Rainwater v. Nat'l Home Ins. Co.
  944 F.2d 190· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a reference to AAA rules in a contract, even without explicit 'final' or 'binding' language, can signify agreement to binding arbitration, and that a party's counsel's concession that an amount was 'not an issue' binds the client.
• Wagoner v. Wagoner
  938 F.2d 1120· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a prematurely filed notice of appeal is a nullity if filed while a tolling motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is pending.
• Jester v. United States
  714 F.2d 97· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 3×
  The appeal is dismissed because the notice of appeal was not timely filed within the sixty-day period required by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a), as no timely post-trial motion tolled the time for appeal.
• Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc.
  582 F.2d 982· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a plaintiff seeking voluntary dismissal conditioned on paying costs and fees cannot appeal the dismissal order if the conditions are not legally unreasonable, and the plaintiff has alternative options.
• Parviz v. Fed. Detention Ctr. Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, finding she failed to present new evidence or demonstrate manifest error of law or fact, and that her arguments were either untimely or legally insufficient.
• Forbes v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment because it was untimely and, even if construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, failed to show a basis for relief.
• Colony Ins. v. Suncoast Med. Clinic, LLC
  726 F. Supp. 2d 1369· M.D. Fla.· 2010-10-12 ·cited 2×·via Rule 59(E) Motion
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusions for medical services applied, meaning the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the medical clinic.
• Steffen v. United States (In Re Steffen)
  405 B.R. 486· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government's objection to the homestead exemption was timely filed and that the debtor did not possess a sufficient legal or equitable interest in the property, titled in a partnership's name, to claim it as a homestead exemption.
• Kelley v. Singletary
  238 F. Supp. 2d 1325· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the respondent's motion to alter the judgment to address all claims in the habeas corpus petition, granting the petition on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to lack of pretrial investigation, but denying it on the claim of evidence destruction.
• Barnett Bank of S. Fla. v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
  883 F. Supp. 707· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it must give proper regard to a state court's interpretation of state law, even when removed to federal court, and denied the motion to vacate the judgment.
• Concordia Coll. Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.
  999 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's asbestos abatement cost recovery action was barred by the statute of repose and was not revived by the asbestos revival statute because it was not timely begun. The court also held that class action tolling did not apply to the revival statute.
• Kattan v. Dist. OF Columbia
  995 F.2d 274· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-15 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment)
  The court held that the District of Columbia waived the issue of Mr. Kattan's eligibility for attorney's fees by not raising it timely.
• Agapita Rosa Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez
  996 F.2d 425· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to alter or amend judgment challenging the sufficiency of evidence and excessive damages, nor in denying reinstatement.
• United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc.
  982 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Deutsch
  981 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration filed over two years after the judgment was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), depriving the district court of jurisdiction.