Horace D. McCowan Jr. And Sarah E. McCowan v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., and Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

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 motion made pursuant to Local Rule 3(j), the predecessor to Local Rule 6.3, was \properly one under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e)\
• holding that motion for reconsideration made pursuant to local rule was functionally a Civil Rule 59(e) motion \regardless of [its] label\ and therefore notice of appeal filed during pendency of that motion was a nullity
• holding that motion for reconsideration made pursuant to local rule was functionally a Civil Rule 59(e) motion “regardless of [its] label” and therefore notice of appeal filed during pendency of that motion was a nullity
• explaining that the federal substantive law of contracts “incorporates generally accepted principles of contract law”
• finding that “the absence of a request for relief” against a party to an arbitration agreement with the plaintiffs, did not “determine whether a controversy exist[ed]” between that party and the plaintiffs
• although pendent appellate jurisdiction should be used sparingly, pendent review of otherwise nonappealable issue was “a wise and time saving exercise of ... discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).