Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Eleven Vehicles

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided January 11, 2000No. 99-1241Unknown

1ConcurrenceAlito, Circuit Judge

I concur in the Court’s judgment, but I write separately to explain my understanding of certain threshold jurisdictional questions and of the District Court’s task on remand.

I

I cannot agree with the majority’s implicit conclusion that the issue of whether a Rule 59(e) motion is timely filed must be noticed sua sponte by this Court. The District Court rejected the government’s Rule 59 argument and the government did not appeal this issue. Therefore, unless the question of timely filing implicated the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it is not properly before this Court. I believe…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  4. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Rode v. DellarcipreteCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API