In Re Frank J. Stangel, Debtor. Frank J. Stangel v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the dismissal of an appeal of a 4 judgment and a denial of the first motion to reconsider because a second and successive motion to reconsider did not toll the appeal period
• \[T]he interest of finality requires that the parties generally get only one bite at the Rule 59(e) apple for the purpose of tolling the time for bringing an appeal.\
• “Because [Rule] 4(a)(4) directly tracks the language of [Fed. R. Bankr. P.] 8002(b), courts typically look to decisions applying [Rule] 4(a) as a guide to applying Rule 8002.”
• “[T]he interest of finality requires that the parties generally get only one bite at the Rule 59(e) apple for the purpose of tolling the time for bringing an appeal.”
• “[T]he interest of finality requires that the parties generally get only one bite at the Rule 59(e) apple for the purpose of tolling the time for bringing an appeal.”
• “[T]he interest of finality requires that the parties generally get only one bite at the Rule 59(e) apple for the purpose of tolling the time for bringing an appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).