CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

 
      

GRIGGS V. PROVIDENT CONSUMER DISCOUNT CO., 459 U. S. 56 (1982)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 459 U. S. 56 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.

No. 82-5082

Decided November 29, 1982

459 U.S. 56

Syllabus

The District Court entered judgment for petitioners in their civil action against respondent, which then filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. While that motion was still pending, respondent filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, the District Court denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment, and the Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction of the appeal and reversed the District Court's judgment. The Court of Appeals held that, although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) provides that a notice of appeal, filed before the disposition of a motion filed in the district court to alter or amend the judgment, "shall have no effect," and a new notice of appeal "must be filed" after entry of the order disposing of the motion, nevertheless an appellant who filed a premature notice of appeal could proceed unless the appellee showed prejudice resulting from the premature filing of the notice, which was not done here.

Held: The Court of Appeals' analysis of Rule 4(a)(4) is contrary to the language and purposes of the 1979 amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Prior to 1979, if a notice of appeal was filed pending disposition of a motion to vacate, alter, or amend the judgment, it was generally held that the district court retained jurisdiction to decide the motion, and the notice of appeal was adequate for purposes of beginning the appeals process. However, after the 1979 amendments, when a premature notice of appeal is filed, it is as if no notice of appeal were filed at all, and thus the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to act. The requirement of a timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Certiorari granted; 680 F.2d 927, vacated and remanded.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com




www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED