Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,249 Homer E. Stephenson and Freda Lois Stephenson, His Wife v. Calpine Conifers Ii, Ltd., a Limited Partnership

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring the entry of final judgment before a Rule 59(e) motion could be entertained, because otherwise “litigants could obtain appellate review of partial judgments by simply appealing a Rule 59(e) order.”
• holding such a right exists
• “[W]e do not think a Rule 59(e) motion could have been entertained [in this case]. Our conclusion in this regard is based on the fact that no judgments were ever entered in favor of [defendants], and on the language of Rule 59(e
• § 10(b) and 17(a) are similar in nature
• private right of action implied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).