Legal Opinion
Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 21, 1988No. 87-133PublishedCited by 150 opinions
1Per curiam
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) provides that if any party files a timely motion “under Rule 59 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] to alter or amend the judgment,” then the time for appeal “shall run from the entry of the order . . . granting or denying” such a motion. The Rule specifically indicates that a notice of appeal filed before the *266disposition of such a motion “shall have no effect” but that a “new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion.” In this case, we are asked to determine whether…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters of CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Allan G. Charles v. Richard M. Daley, State's Attorney, and Eugene F. Diamond, InterveningCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- William Knighton, Cross-Appellant v. John C. Watkins, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by150 opinions
- Osterneck v. Ernst & WhinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Elouise Cobell v. Sally JewellCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2015
- United States v. Melvin P. DeutschCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- George E. Apostol v. Mark Gallion, John Auriemma v. Fred Rice, and City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Everett Hadix, C. Pepper Moore v. Perry JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
145 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.