3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Board Allows Government to Add Powerful “Unclean Hands” Affirmative Defense on Eve of Hearing

    Davis Wright Tremaine LLPJonathan DeMellaMay 15, 2018

    Of course, the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the [[[Court].Raytheon Co., ASBCA No. 60448, 2018 WL 1964930 (Apr. 9, 2018) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (emphasis added)). Here, even in this relatively brief decision, it was apparent that Raytheon articulated “an apparent or declared reason” why the Government should not be permitted to amend its answer at such a late time.

  2. Capital Defense Weekly, October 16 , 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterOctober 16, 2000

    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) states that "the notice of appeal must designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed." Although "[a] mistake in designating orders to be appealed does not bar review if the intent to appeal a particular judgment can be fairly inferred and if the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake,"New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 884 (5th Cir. 1998);Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962),(2)we simply cannot say that the State's notice of appeal evidences any mistake that would provide us with jurisdiction here.Although a mere technical error in designating the proper judgment being appealed will not divest us of jurisdiction, our review of the case law addressing such "technical" errors demonstrates that the error committed here does not fall into that category. We can overlook such "technical" errors where, for instance, a motion for reconsideration has beendenied, and the appellant appeals only from the denial of this Rule 59 motion.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, October 9, 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterOctober 9, 2000

    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) states that "the notice of appeal must designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed." Although "[a] mistake in designating orders to be appealed does not bar review if the intent to appeal a particular judgment can be fairly inferred and if the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake,"New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 884 (5th Cir. 1998);Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962),(2)we simply cannot say that the State's notice of appeal evidences any mistake that would provide us with jurisdiction here.Although a mere technical error in designating the proper judgment being appealed will not divest us of jurisdiction, our review of the case law addressing such "technical" errors demonstrates that the error committed here does not fall into that category. We can overlook such "technical" errors where, for instance, a motion for reconsideration has beendenied, and the appellant appeals only from the denial of this Rule 59 motion.