Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that notice of appeal filed during pendency of Rule 59 motion was ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction
• concluding that Rule 59(e) was intended to apply to the reconsideration of matters encompassed within the merits of a judgment
• concluding that Rule 59(e) was intended to apply to the reconsideration of matters encompassed within the merits of a judgment
• holding that a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest “constitute^] a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e)”
• holding that a motion seeking a discretionary award of prejudgment interest constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion
• concluding that Rule 59(e) was intended to apply to the reconsideration of matters encompassed within the merits of a judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).