MARY BROWN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MC RAE, GEORGIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

11th Cir. | 1986-10-27
No. 85-8186
804 F.2d 612 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986) Negative Treatment
Cited by 22 cases
Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges of this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc without oral argument. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Lewis and Carolyn Pate v. Seaboard R.R., Inc., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir. 1987)
    …The ten day period for serving new trial motions is jurisdictional and cannot be extended in the discretion of the district court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b); Gribble v. Harris, 625 F. 2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., 804 F. 2d 612, 614 (11th Cir.1986). Prior to the 1966 amendments to Rule 59, most courts held that a district court could not grant a motion for a new trial on any ground not raised by a motion served within the ten day limitations period in Rule 59(b).16 As orig…
  • Mr. Jesse Pinion v. DOW Chem., 928 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1991)
    …time for a notice of appeal; an untimely filed post-trial motion, however, will not suffice. See Browder, 434 U.S. at 264-65, 98 S.Ct. at 560-61; Kraus v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 899 F. 2d 1360, 1362 (3d Cir.1990); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., 804 F. 2d 612, 617 (11th Cir.1986); Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). In order to be considered timely, post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 50(b) or 59 must be served within ten (10) days after entry of the district court’s judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b).…
    1 / 2
  • Kraus v. Consol. Rail Corp., 899 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1990)
    …ue circumstances exist where district court granted an extension and accepted the Rule 59(e) motion and plaintiffs “relied to their detriment upon the district court’s statements and action” (emphasis in original)); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., 804 F. 2d 612 (11th Cir.1986) (district court’s erroneous extension of time to amend new trial motion came within unique circumstances exception). The Seventh Circuit struggled with an issue comparable to that presented here in Bailey v. Sharp, 782 F. 2d 1366, 1…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw