Skip to main content

Bruce v. Bruce

Citations

  • 587 So. 2d 898
  • 1991 WL 200798

How courts have described this case

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

  • post-judgment fees authorized in divorce action based upon established precedent and financial need of spouse
  • when ambiguous, a court should disregard the label or title of a pleading or motion and look to its content
  • “Rule 59(e) motions go to the heart of the matter to those issues predicate to a decision on the merits.”
  • Rule 59 motions stay the running of the thirty day time period for appeal purposes and for the enforceability of the judgments
  • premature notice of appeal of no effect
  • “[W]here a motion calls into question the correctness of all or any part of a judgment, . . . and where the motion is filed within the time allowed by Rule 59, we will presume that the motion has been filed under Rule 59 without regard to how it may be styled.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robertson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

65 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.