Anant Kumar Tripati v. Gary L. Henman R.J. Barncastle Willis Gibson Richard A. Stacy Leland Pico Dale Berndt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a timely FRCP 2 59(e) motion that was filed after a notice of appeal rendered the notice of appeal “not merely 3 defective; it was a nullity[,]” so the district court “erred in denying the motion solely on the ground 4 that it lacked jurisdiction”
• district court retains subject matter jurisdiction to consider a timely Rule 59(e) motion when filed after a notice of appeal
• “Because the purpose of Rule 4(a)(4) is to 14 prevent duplication of effort by the courts, appellate review of the underlying merits of 15 [petitioner’s appeal] would be premature prior to the district court’s consideration of the 16 motion to alter or amend the judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).