Legal Opinion
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 21, 1989No. 87-1201PublishedCited by 700 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kennedy
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,” a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of that motion “shall have no effect.” In this case, we decide whether a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest filed after the entry of judgment constitutes a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment and renders ineffective any notice of appeal filed before a ruling on that motion. If we decide the question in the affirmative, we are asked to decide…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- 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
- General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- West Virginia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by700 opinions
- Bowles v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Banister v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Raymond J. Van Skiver Alma L. Van Skiver v. United States of America and John DoesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Obriecht v. RaemischCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- William McNabola v. Chicago Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
695 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.