-
310 F.2d 918·
5th Cir.·
1962-12-05
·cited 63×
The ten-day period for filing a criminal appeal does not commence if the defendant is unrepresented until advised of their right to appeal and counsel files the notice.
-
625 F.2d 1173·
5th Cir.·
1980-09-15
·cited 50×
An untimely motion for a new trial does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if not filed within the original sixty-day period.
-
456 F.2d 1084·
3d Cir.·
1972-03-13
·cited 44×
The district court may, at any time, consider a motion to validate a late-filed notice of appeal within sixty days of judgment for excusable neglect, and to this extent, prior case law is overruled.
-
633 F.2d 1165·
5th Cir.·
1981-01-08
·cited 42×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for willful recalcitrance in discovery and in denying a Rule 60 motion for relief.
-
853 F.2d 155·
3d Cir.·
1988-07-21
·cited 38×
An untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
519 F.2d 1127·
5th Cir.·
1975-09-17
·cited 32×
A Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal after the time for appeal has expired.
-
891 F.2d 886·
11th Cir.·
1990-01-11
·cited 24×
A motion for reconsideration of a remittitur order, which significantly alters the judgment, qualifies as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59, thereby tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal.
-
865 F.2d 907·
7th Cir.·
1989-01-23
·cited 22×
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprived the court of jurisdiction, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an extension of time to appeal.
-
769 F.2d 911·
2d Cir.·
1985-08-05
·cited 22×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for an out-of-time appeal, as the circumstances did not constitute excusable neglect.
-
637 F.2d 1345·
9th Cir.·
1981-02-02
·cited 22×
The en banc court's decision to overrule Michaels v. Chappell and find the appeal timely was unnecessary and misapplied FRAP 4(a).
-
178 F.2d 386·
5th Cir.·
1949-12-07
·cited 22×
A secured creditor is entitled to post-bankruptcy interest and principal in full if the security's value exceeds the debt, and administrative costs should not be deducted from the secured claim if sufficient equity exists in the property.
-
714 F.2d 1107·
11th Cir.·
1983-09-16
·cited 16×
The appeal must be dismissed because the notice of appeal was not timely filed after the denial of an untimely motion to amend the judgment.
-
339 F.2d 920·
10th Cir.·
1965-01-07
·cited 16×
The court held that requiring a showing of 'plain error' from the original trial is a reasonable prerequisite for considering a late appeal request when no fraud or deceit is involved.
-
909 F.2d 139·
5th Cir.·
1990-08-20
·cited 12×
The court held that a business crisis and misinterpretation of appeal deadlines by office staff do not constitute 'excusable neglect' under FRAP 4(a)(5), rendering the notice of appeal untimely.
-
278 F.2d 604·
10th Cir.·
1960-04-16
·cited 12×
The court held that the time for filing a notice of appeal begins to run from the entry of the judgment on the docket, not from the defendant's actual or constructive notice of the entry.
-
861 F.2d 873·
5th Cir.·
1988-12-19
·cited 11×
A timely motion to reconsider an order in bankruptcy court tolls the time for filing an appeal, similar to a Rule 59 motion, and should not be treated as a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment.
-
928 F.2d 304·
9th Cir.·
1990-09-26
·cited 10×
The court held that the bankruptcy court's Order Sustaining Trustee's Objection was the final, appealable order, making the debtors' subsequent notice of appeal untimely.
-
936 F.2d 292·
7th Cir.·
1991-06-25
·cited 8×
The court held that Nagib's appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to an untimely notice of appeal, and affirmed the convictions of Dumont and Atri.
-
886 F.2d 1228·
9th Cir.·
1989-10-06
·cited 8×
Both notices of appeal were untimely; the first was premature, and the second was filed too late after the denial of the motion for a new trial was properly entered.
-
882 F.2d 899·
4th Cir.·
1989-08-22
·cited 4×
The court adheres to existing authority, barring the pro se prisoner's appeal on jurisdictional grounds due to a late filing.
-
786 F.2d 185·
3d Cir.·
1986-03-19
·cited 4×
A motion to correct an inadvertent omission in a judgment, even if timely under Rule 60, does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if it is not filed within the ten-day period required for a Rule 59 motion.
-
898 F.2d 5·
1st Cir.·
1990-03-12
·cited 2×
The court held that for appeals from consolidated actions under First Circuit law, individual actions retain their separate identity, making judgments appealable if they dispose of all claims in that action, even without Rule 54(b) certification.
-
327 F.2d 709·
10th Cir.·
1964-02-19
·cited 2×
The court held that the performance and payment bonds did not obligate the surety to pay the state use taxes owed by the contractor, as the tax was a statutory obligation of the contractor and not covered by the bond's definition of a claimant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-05
McKesson Corporation obtained a default judgment against Benzer Pharmacy Holding LLC and related defendants for $90,031.01 plus post-judgment interest. The order clarifies that despite multiple default judgment motions, there is one underlying debt, and recovery from any defendan
-
543 So. 2d 440·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1989-05-23
Lawrence Dellecese appealed a workers' compensation order that granted limited temporary disability benefits but denied other claims for wage loss, medical treatment, and attendant care. The court dismissed cross appeals filed by the insurers (Feisco and Cigna) as untimely becaus