Pfizer Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Margaret Uprichard, an Individual

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Magistrate Judge had the authority to amend a judgment to reflect the award of prejudgment interest that had previously been stipulated to by the parties
• addressing argument that the district court exceeded its authority in acting pursuant to Rule 60(a)
• “[T]he relevant test for the applicability of Rule 60(a) is whether the change affects substantive rights of the parties and is therefore beyond the scope of Rule 60(a
• Rule 60(a) “encompasses only errors mechanical in nature, apparent on the record, and not involving an error of substantive judgment.” (quotations omitted)
• “[A] district court has inherent authority to ensure that prevailing parties are able to enforce prior judgments.”
• describing ministerial errors in a Rule 60(a) analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).