United States v. Indrelunas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the separate document requirement of Rule 58 must be “mechanically applied”
• holding that separate document requirement of Rule 58 is mandatory
• holding that separate document requirement of Rule 58 is mandatory
• emphasizing that the purpose of the separate-document requirement was “to remove uncertainties as to when a judgment is entered”
• explaining that entry of final judgment “has a most important bearing . . . on the time for appeal and the making of post-judgment motions that go to the finality of the judgment for purposes of appeal” (quotation omitted)
• addressing whether a stipulation specifying the amount of refund to be paid to each of the prevailing parties was a judgment that triggered the time to appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).