UNITED STATES

v.

THOMAS

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• In re Est. Of Mark Daniel Zimbrick v. Zimbrick, 453 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
  …. 2d 135 (Fla.1978). [*1158] A study of the cases construing Rule 59(b) discloses that federal courts have eschewed the limitations which we have placed on the state rule. For example, in Partridge v. Presley, 189 F. 2d 645 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 850, 72 S.Ct. 79, 96 L.Ed. 642 (1951), the court held: Appellee’s argument that the motion for a new trial was premature because it was filed before the actual entry of judgment must be rejected, since Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…
• Fla. Coast Bank OF Pompano Beach v. Kimmitt, 446 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …135 (Fla.1978). A study of the cases construing Rule 59(b), discloses that federal courts have eschewed the limitations which we have placed on the state rule. For example, in Partridge v. Presley, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 189 F. 2d 645, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 850, 72 S.Ct. 79, 96 L.Ed. 642 (1951), the court held: Appellee’s argument that the motion for a new trial was premature because it was filed before the actual entry of judgment must be rejected, since Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…
• United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
  …in fact presented in a hearing at which he presided on a not unrelated matter. See Gomez v. Wilson, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 247 n.28, 477 F. 2d 411, 416 n.28 (1973); cf. Partridge v. Presley, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300, 189 F. 2d 645, 647, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 850, 72 S.Ct. 79, 96 L.Ed. 642 (1951). See generally C. McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 330, at 765-766 & nn.74-75 (Cleary ed. 1972). Appellants argue that, even if Haldeman’s testimony were judicially noticeable, it was hearsay and hence…