Lisa Panhorst Joanne Jones John M. Jones 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.

• allowing ten business days in which to file a timely Rule 59(e) motion
• relying on Browder to hold that “[a]n untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not defer the time for filing an appeal, which continues to run from the entry of the initial judgment order,” where district court had granted motion to consider untimely Rule 59(e
• “An untimely Rule 59 motion is never proper because the Rules expressly forbid an extension of time for such a motion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• doubting \the continued viability of the unique circumstances doctrine\
• doubting “the continued viability of the unique circumstances doctrine”
• a district court has no authority to extend the filing period under Rule 59(e)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).