EDWARDS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978)
  …919, 923 (CA7 1974); Wallace v. Heinze, 351 F. 2d 39, 40 (CA9 1965), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 954 (1966). Rule 59 in particular is based on an “interest in speedy disposition and finality,” Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F. 2d 1266, 1268 (CA1), cert. denied, 402 U. S. 1012 (1971). Although some aspects of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be inappropriate for habeas proceedings, see Harris v. Nelson, supra; Preiser, supra, at 495-496, the requirement of a prompt motion for reconsideration is well suited to the…
• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989)
  …tan Bank, 871 F. 2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1989); see also In re Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F. 2d 22, 24 (1st Cir.1987) (similar), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2821, 100 L.Ed.2d 922 (1988); Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F. 2d 1266, 1267-68 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1012, 91 S.Ct. 2189, 29 L.Ed.2d 435 (1971). The rule contains a time limit: motions thereunder must “be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Plaintiff did not observe this deadline. The district court was, there…
• Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance, 587 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …d, Acts of 1973, 63d Legislature, ch. 399, § 3. This same legislation amended present Art. 4667 to include obscenity. Ch. 399, § 2(J). For judicial consideration of the former procedure, see State v. Scott, 460 S.W. 2d 103 (Tex. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1012, 91 S.Ct. 2188, 29 L.Ed.2d 435 (1971); Newman v. Conover, 313 F.Supp. 623 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (three-judge court); Fontaine v. Dial, 303 F.Supp. 436 (W.D.Tex.1969) (three-judge court). The Pennsylvania injunction rules include the following provision:…