Feeley v. Craven

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 motion filed “as a Rule 59(e)” was not a motion- to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the “motion for costs was wholly collateral to the'judgment on the merits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).