Rule 59(E) Motion

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

• Kennedy v. City OF Cleveland
  797 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 94×
  The right to an immediate interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity is conditioned upon timely filing of a notice of appeal and can be waived by noncompliance with reasonable temporal limitations set by the district court.
• Aloe Coal Co. & Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Clark Equip. Co.
  816 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 51×
  A purchaser of industrial equipment cannot recover in tort for damage to the product itself caused by a fire, as such loss is purely economic and limited to remedies under warranty law.
• United States Labor Party v. Oremus
  619 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, or Equal Protection Clause, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their post-judgment motion to amend
• Textor v. Bd. OF Regents OF N. Ill. Univ.
  711 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint and that the attorneys were denied a fair hearing on the award of attorney's fees.
• Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno
  547 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 46×
  A receiver acting under court orders shares the appointing judge's absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a bank and corporation accused of conspiring with the receiver do not. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981 were properly dismissed.
• The Comm'rs OF Highways OF the Towns OF Annawan v. United States
  684 F.2d 443· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 30×
  The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to this case because the Commissioners, as governmental subdivisions, do not qualify as 'parties' under the Act, and the EAJA's effective date clause was not met. Furthermore, other statutory and equitable grounds for attorney
• United States v. Ford
  650 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 30×
  The appeal from the denial of the motion to intervene is moot because the underlying summons enforcement proceeding was dismissed, and the appellants are not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as they were not prevailing parties.
• World OF Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co.
  756 F.2d 1467· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a vertical conspiracy to maintain resale prices is illegal per se, and that sufficient evidence existed to send the Sherman Act claim against La-Z-Boy to the jury. However, insufficient evidence existed to support the claim against Montgomery Ward and Mauldin.
• Mar. Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank
  959 F.2d 1194· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The New Jersey district court retained subject matter jurisdiction over claims related to a bankruptcy case filed in another district, and its proceedings were not automatically voided by the bankruptcy filing.
• Gilmore v. Salt Lake Community Action Program
  710 F.2d 632· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the termination of employment was neither federal nor state action, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the decision was attributable to a governmental policy or rule, despite the agency's governmental funding and the presence of public officials on it
• Thomas v. Farmville Mfg. Co., Inc.
  705 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Dale Elecs., Inc. v. R. C. L. Elecs., Inc.
  488 F.2d 382· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the invalidity of several patents for obviousness and failure to disclose the best mode, reversed the dismissal of a counterclaim, and affirmed judgments on unfair competition and fees.
• Conley v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Grenada Cnty. Hosp.
  707 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a hospital employee guidebook can create a property interest in continued employment, and that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to rebut charges, but the specific application varies by individual circumstances.
• Adams-Arapahoe Joint Sch. Dist. NO. 28-J v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  891 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that defective design/construction is a covered risk under an all-risk policy, and the corrosion exclusion does not apply if the corrosion results from a covered risk. However, the jury instruction on the burden of proof for fortuitousness was erroneous and prejudi
• Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Corp. t/d/b/a Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  899 F.2d 1350· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the attorney's recusal motion was properly denied, but the sanctions order against him must be vacated and remanded due to insufficient notice and failure to differentiate between Rule 11 and § 1927 standards.
• Offs. Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc.
  62 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 1999-07-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the transaction was an oral agreement for the sale of goods with an open price term, not a joint venture, and determined a reasonable price for the goods based on market value.
• Dalton v. First Interstate Bank OF Denver
  863 F.2d 702· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 11×
  A timely motion to amend a judgment, even if not explicitly styled as such, is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion, requiring a new notice of appeal after its disposition.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Huff
  758 F. Supp. 2d 1288· S.D. Fla.· 2010-12-17 ·cited 9×
  The court amended its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law based on a motion for reconsideration, incorporating details from a seven-day bench trial and subsequent filings.
• Rosen v. Rucker
  905 F.2d 702· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that defendants' failure to make a written settlement offer under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 makes them liable for delay damages, regardless of plaintiffs' settlement demands or alleged trial delays.
• Woods v. City OF Mich. City
  940 F.2d 275· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 8×
  A state statute creating a right to release does not, by itself, create a federal constitutional right to a pre-deprivation hearing when that right is allegedly violated.
• United States v. F.E.B. Corp.
  52 F.4th 916· 11th Cir.· 2022-11-01 ·cited 6×
  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
• Wainwright v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  537 F.3d 1282· 11th Cir.· 2007-11-13 ·cited 6×
  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
• Barrett v. United States
  965 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 6×
  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.
• 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.
• In re Sharon Steel Corp. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
  918 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-14 ·cited 6×
  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.
• 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.
• Kleckley v. State
  2022 WL 3566908· S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-02 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  824 F.2d 249· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Colony Ins. v. Suncoast Med. Clinic, LLC
  726 F. Supp. 2d 1369· M.D. Fla.· 2010-10-12 ·cited 2×
  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.
• Simmons v. Ghent
  970 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-10 ·cited 2×
  A timely filed motion to reconsider suspends the time for filing a notice of appeal, but the motion itself must be served within the ten-day period to be effective. A notice of appeal filed before a timely served motion is decided is premature.
• Elba Alvarado Aviles v. Burgos
  783 F.2d 270· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in determining co-primary coverage based on the Puerto Rico permissive use statute, as the lease agreement and policy language dictated the insurance obligations. The court also corrected calculation errors in the amended judgment.
• MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-01
  The court denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration because it failed to demonstrate a valid basis for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), and did not present new facts or law to disturb the prior ruling.
• Webb v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-12
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petitioner's motions.
• Romanowiz v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-05-25
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the denial of her reimbursement request was denied because it failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration and presented arguments that could have been raised earlier.
• McDowell v. Gonzalez
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-12-06
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion because it lacked jurisdiction due to a pending appeal and the motion failed to meet the grounds for reconsideration.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hermil, Inc.
  838 F.2d 1151· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-29
  The appellate court reviewed an order from the deputy commissioner that granted wage-loss benefits and attorney fees to a claimant who sustained a work-related injury.