§Why CasetextPricing

Institute for Policy Studies v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

MOTION for Reconsideration

19 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,714 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. Green v. Admrs. of Tulane Educ. Fund

    284 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 580 times
    Holding that testimony of three other complaints of sexual harassment was not hearsay because it was offered to prove that the employer was on notice rather than for the truth of the matter asserted

  3. Pincay v. Andrews

    389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 513 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]e must . . . affirm unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the lower court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached after weighing the relevant [excusable neglect] factors"

  4. Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.

    333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 359 times
    Holding that grant or denial of Rule 4 relief “cannot be set aside by a reviewing court unless it has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion that it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors”

  5. Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

    50 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 1995)   Cited 422 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff's claim under Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act preempted by the LHWCA's exclusivity provision

  6. Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

    211 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 2000)   Cited 296 times
    Holding that lawyer's miscalculation of thirty-day appeal period presented “garden-variety attorney inattention” and therefore reversing district court's grant of Rule 4 relief

  7. Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney

    130 F.3d 996 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that "attorney's misunderstanding of the plain language of a [court] rule cannot constitute excusable neglect such that a party is relieved of the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory deadline"

  8. Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co

    28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by granting Rule 4 extension, when attorney had mistakenly believed that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) the Rule 4 period began three days after the judgment was mailed, because the rules were "nonambiguous"

  9. Yesudian ex Rel. U.S. v. Howard University

    270 F.3d 969 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 90 times
    Holding district courts can grant even after-the-fact deadline extensions without finding excusable neglect if the other party was not prejudiced

  10. Walter v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United

    181 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that an administrative failure to record a deadline was excusable neglect

  11. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,370 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  12. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,169 times   556 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party