Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• finding \excusable neglect\ irrelevant to Rule 4(a) determination because, under Eberhart, \a court must strictly enforce the time limit if an adverse party invokes it\
• noting that court is to enforce time limit “once it is properly invoked”
• applying excusable neglect standard to Rule 4(a) motion seeking extension where counsel made a mistake calendaring deadlines
• “‘Notwithstanding the ‘flexible’ Pioneer . . . standard, experienced counsel’s misapplication of clear and unambiguous procedural rules cannot excuse his failure to [timely file].’” (citation omitted)
• upholding district court’s determination that counsel’s “mistakenly calendaring the notice of appeal as of the date it was received, rather than the filing date” did not constitute excusable neglect
• “[Wjhether a cross-appeal time limit is jurisdictional or, after Eber-hart, only a ‘claim-processing rule,’ we conclude that Eberhart strongly indicates that we are to enforce that limit strictly, once it is properly invoked.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).