Legal Opinion
Vincent McCalla v. Royal MacCabees Life Insurance Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 3, 2004No. 02-17051PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BERZON, Circuit Judge.
The primary question in this case is whether revising a judgment to include mandatory prejudgment interest is a correction of a clerical error within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which sets no time limit within which correction must occur. We hold that such a motion is not a correction of a clerical error, but is instead an alteration or amendment of the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which requires that the motion be filed no later than ten days after entry of the judgment.
Here, the district court granted Vincent McCalla’s…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Osterneck v. Ernst & WhinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Anthony Smith v. Ron DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Zamani v. CarnesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Zamani v. CarnesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- In Re the Exxon Valdez, Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping Company, and United States of America, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.