Blue v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 159

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a district court’s errant decision to consider untimely post‐trial motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(b) “ha[d] no jurisdictional consequences”
• concluding that Rule 59(e) is a “non-jurisdictional procedural rule[]” because it was “promulgated by the Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2077, and therefore ‘do[es] not create or withdraw federal jurisdiction’” (quoting Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 453
• concluding that, where opposing party had not objected to an impermissible extension of the deadline to file a post-trial motion, the district court had jurisdiction to hear those motions but they “did not toll the time [appellant] had to file its Notice of Appeal”
• “[T]he district court in this case violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 by extending [the defendant’s] time to file its post-trial motions beyond 28 days.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).