Federal Rules Of Appellate Procedure Rule 4

40 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Robinson v. Tanner
  798 F.2d 1378· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 63×
  A notice of appeal filed from an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable is not cured by a subsequent final judgment, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Earle T. Cook
  432 F.2d 1093· 7th Cir.· 1970-09-25 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in denying the defendant's motion for discovery of scientific reports, nor in admitting testimony regarding the defendant's termination of an FBI interview.
• Beliz v. W.H. McLEOD & Sons Packing Co.
  765 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the farmer was liable as an employer for unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that the workers were not at fault for failing to prove their hours. The court also dismissed the farmer's cross-appeal as untimely.
• Dionysius Richerson v. Captain Gerald R. Jones
  572 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 52×
• N. Conant Webb, M.D. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  696 F.2d 101· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while unique circumstances excused the appellant's untimely appeal, his challenge to the FDA regulation was not ripe for judicial review because it was presented in an abstract form without a specific, denied FOIA request.
• Abex Corp. v. Ski's Enters., Inc.
  748 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-27 ·cited 36×
  The Equal Access to Justice Act does not abrogate the priority of federal tax liens, and therefore, attorney fees cannot be awarded to an interpleader plaintiff from the interpleader fund before preexisting federal tax liens are satisfied.
• McKINNEY v. DE Bord
  507 F.2d 501· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-21 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a count of the complaint without allowing the plaintiff to respond, by improperly considering materials outside the complaint.
• Page v. DeLAUNE
  837 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a letter designating the record on appeal, sent within the time limit, satisfied the notice of appeal requirement, and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff's procedural due process claim.
• Hogg v. United States
  428 F.2d 274· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to provide adequate jury instructions regarding the taxpayer's statutory duty to maintain sufficient records and the burden of proof on that issue.
• Grantham v. McGRAW-Edison Co.
  444 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1971-05-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Blonder-Tongue's abrogation of the mutuality requirement in patent litigation does not apply when there has been no prior determination of patent invalidity, and that the estoppel defense was not timely raised.
• Viviana McCALDEN v. Cal. Library Ass'n
  955 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 23×
  The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and Unruh Act claims, finding that the district court erred in its application of pleading rules and California law. The court affirmed the dismissal of the § 1985 and § 1986
• Osterberger v. Relocation Realty Serv. Corp.
  921 F.2d 72· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial should be treated as an appeal from the underlying judgment if the intent to appeal the judgment is clear, despite the technical wording of the notice of appeal.
• Okla. Health Servs. Fed. Credit Union v. Webb
  726 F.2d 624· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter the challenged orders, and the appeals were timely filed.
• Winfield v. ST. JOE Paper Co.
  663 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the partial summary judgment was not certified as final and the denial of the preliminary injunction was not properly before the court.
• Kowaleski v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  879 F.2d 1173· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the petition for review was not filed by the real party in interest and the subsequent motion to substitute the correct party was untimely.
• Am. Sec. Bank v. John Y. Harrison Realty, Inc.
  670 F.2d 317· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-12 ·cited 12×
  A motion to reconsider a motion for a new trial does not toll the time for filing an appeal, but an award of attorney's fees against a party acting in good faith must be reversed.
• Dugan v. Mo. Neon & Plastic Advertising Co. & Tubelite Co., Inc.
  472 F.2d 944· 8th Cir.· 1973-02-06 ·cited 12×
  A garnishment summons in aid of execution on an intangible debt creates a choate lien that takes priority over a subsequently filed federal tax lien, entitling the garnishor to status as a judgment lien creditor under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a).
• Sanchez v. City OF Santa ANA
  936 F.2d 1027· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly vacated its Rule 54(b) certification as a clerical error, and that the denial of discovery of personnel files was not an abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed summary judgment on promotion claims and remanded retaliation
• Hardy v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  599 F.2d 628· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal.
• In the Matter Pertaining to W. H. "Pat" O'Bryan
  399 F.2d 916· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because the United States was not a party to the disbarment proceedings, thus the 30-day appeal period applied.
• United States v. Menelao Orlando Estevez
  852 F.2d 239· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory ten-day period after the district court's order.
• In re Morrow v. Morrow
  564 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and counsel's workload did not constitute excusable neglect.
• Justine Realty Co. v. Am. Nat'l CAN Co.
  945 F.2d 1044· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 6×
  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.
• United States v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n
  865 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appeals filed outside the prescribed time limits are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to intervene as untimely.
• Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., Inc.
  879 F.2d 809· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 4×
  A magistrate cannot enter a final appealable order in a post-judgment dispute among competing creditors without the parties' express consent, as this power is not granted by the United States Magistrates Act.
• Constant L. Vermandel and Rosa Vermandel v. Gray
  772 F.2d 738· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the bank's motion to amend its answer and seek a refund after a final judgment had been entered.
• Orval Louis Gendron and Muriel Margaret Gendron v. Shastina Props., Inc.
  578 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 2×
• Khatabi v. CAR Auto Holdings LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-31
  The court held that a final judgment must be amended to remove individual liability for Title VII claims against a supervisor, as Title VII only allows claims against the employer. The court also found that its prior termination of post-trial motions was not a final disposition,
• Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-15
  Judgment was entered in favor of defendants for attorneys' fees, and any motions for fees/costs must be filed within 14 days of judgment.
• Startley Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Water Works Bd. of the City of Birmingham
  11th Cir.· 2021-05-24
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion.
• DeBose v. USF Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-23
  The court denied the plaintiff's motions for an independent action for relief from judgment, an evidentiary hearing, and an extension of time to file an amended notice of appeal.
• Arnold v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-25
  The court reversed the Commissioner's final decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, requiring reevaluation of a specific medical opinion.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Custom Climate Concepts, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-11
  Final judgment was entered in favor of Southern Insurance Company against Custom Climate Concepts and John Monhollon, declaring no coverage under the CGL Policy for the accident and no duty to defend or indemnify.
• Merlin Jay Phillips to be Appointed Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian T. Phillips v. Barbara Heine for R. Ward Terrell
  984 F.2d 489· D.C. Cir.· 1993-02-09
  The court held that a cause of action under the Death on the High Seas Act accrues at the time of probable death, not upon a judicial declaration of death or appointment of a representative for the defendant's decedent, and equitable tolling does not grant an automatic extension
• United States v. Bond
  956 F.2d 628· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-14
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's time limitations are calculated differently when a guilty plea is withdrawn after a collateral attack, and that the relevant period had not expired.
• Allen v. United States
  938 F.2d 664· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-11
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to vacate sentence, but reinstated a prior appeal that had been dismissed.
• Lech v. ST. Luke's Samaritan Hosp.
  921 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-07
  The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders regarding expert witnesses, leading to the forfeiture of her expert testimony and the inability to establish a case.
• Alamo Chem. Transp. Co. v. M/V Overseas Valdes
  744 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-11
  A request for an enlargement of time to file an appellate brief does not constitute a valid notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 3(c).
• United States v. Davis
  677 F.2d 495· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01
  The court held that the appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus did not clearly evince an intent to appeal, rendering the subsequent notice of appeal untimely.