In re A.E.-1

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the fact that a document was a “‘final order of the Court’” does not resolve the Rule 58 19 ***** In sum, Appellants’ notice of appeal was only timely if the Order was not a separate document within the meaning of Rule 58(a
• applying Mailis and concluding that “the dismissal of [an] appeal would not be appropriate” when it was clear that the intention of the lower court was to enter a final judgment
• distinguishing between \decisions\ of the district court and Rule 58 final judgments
• “It is precisely this kind of uncertainty about whether the District Court intended to enter a final order that warrants the mechanical application of Rule 58.”
• “It is precisely this kind of uncertainty about whether the District Court intended to enter a final order that warrants the mechanical application of Rule 58.”
• “. . . two procedural requirements exist for entry of judgment, which triggers the running of the time for appeal: first, a statement of the judgment on a separate document, and second, the entry of judgment by the clerk on the civil docket.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).