Legal Opinion

Maier v. Patterson

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 7, 1981No. Civ. A. No. 77-3635PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

GILES, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves “to add damages for delay” 1 to a judgment entered thirty-one days before service of the motion.2

Defendant Patterson contends that as a motion to amend the judgment, it is untimely under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59(e).3 Plaintiff, citing Bullins v. City of Philadelphia, 516 F.Supp. 728 (E.D.Pa.1981), argues that Rule 59(e) does not apply. He misreads Bullins. There, plaintiff moved “to amend the judgment,” id., at 728, and the record reveals that the motion was served nine days after entry of judgment.4 Because plaintiff Maier gives no federal procedural…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Renner v. LichtenwalnerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Bullins v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Larsen v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Jarvis v. JohnsonDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1980

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Harold D. Hayden v. Scott Aviation, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  2. Maier v. PattersonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API