Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 73(A) (Time For Appeal)

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

• Yanow v. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co.
  274 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1958-12-17 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the appellee's motions to recall mandate, vacate judgment, and dismiss the appeal were untimely because they were not made within a reasonable time under Rule 60(b)(6).
• Keohane v. Swarco, Inc.
  320 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-05 ·cited 44×
  A motion to amend findings is considered 'made' when served, and Rule 5(d) allows filing within a reasonable time thereafter, thus tolling the time for appeal. Subsequent district court orders entered after a premature appeal are void.
• United States v. Hyman Stromberg
  227 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1955-11-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the amendment to the complaint did not relate back to the original filing date, and therefore, the grounds for denaturalization under the superseded 1940 Act were not applicable to this action filed after the McCarran Act became effective.
• The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. United States
  236 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1956-09-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because the notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the entry of judgment, as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Helene P. Pierre v. Jordan
  333 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as the primary purpose of the suit was to challenge the formation of a local water district, not to redress constitutional rights deprivat
• N. Umberland Mining Co. v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.
  193 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1952-01-22 ·cited 20×
  An ex parte order extending the time to appeal, granted after the original appeal period expired, is void ab initio.
• Preston v. Ætna Life Ins. Co.
  174 F.2d 10· 7th Cir.· 1949-04-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, as the weight of authority suggests that an accident exciting a pre-existing infirmity into activity can be considered the sole cause of loss under an accident policy.
• Napier v. The Del.
  223 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1955-05-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's first and second notices of appeal were untimely and therefore dismissed, but the third notice of appeal, directed to the August 20th order vacating a duplicative order, was timely and affirmed.
• Allen v. Schnuckle
  253 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1958-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The appeals are dismissed because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and did not properly identify the judgment being appealed.
• United States v. Stanton (two cases)
  172 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1949-02-08 ·cited 8×
  Failure to file the record on appeal and docket the appeal within the prescribed time, even with an extension, is grounds for dismissal.
• Shotkin v. Weksler
  254 F.2d 596· 5th Cir.· 1958-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was untimely, depriving the court of jurisdiction.