descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., Inc. And Keith Sales Co. v. Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc. And Olaf A. Hallstrom, Defendants/cross-Appellants. Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., Inc. And Keith Sales Co., Plaintiffs/cross-Appellants v. Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc. And Olaf A. Hallstrom, Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., Inc. And Keith Sales Co. v. Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc. And Olaf A. Hallstrom, Defendants/cross-Appellants

Citations: 17 F.3d 1443; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 14491Docket: 94-1036

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; January 9, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Hallco Manufacturing Co. Inc. and Olaf A. Hallstrom sought to have their appeals held in abeyance pending the district court's decision on their Rule 60(b) motion in the District Court of Oregon. Their request was opposed by Raymond Keith Foster and others, who also sought permission to file a supplemental response. The district court's denial of Hallco's Rule 60(b) motion rendered the request to hold the appeals moot. Initially, following a jury trial, the district court issued a judgment on April 5, 1993. However, post-judgment motions led to the vacating of this judgment and the issuance of an amended judgment on November 16, 1993, which under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), rendered related appeals ineffective and dismissed them as premature. The court granted Foster's motion for a supplemental response and set deadlines for the submission of Foster's opening brief in a related appeal. The outcome underscores the procedural importance of amended judgments and their impact on pending appeals, emphasizing the need for strategic timing in filing appeals following significant post-judgment alterations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Judgments and Subsequent Appeals

Application: Following the grant of a motion to amend, the court issued an amended judgment, which nullified the original judgment and necessitated new appeals.

Reasoning: The court granted a motion to amend the judgment, resulting in a vacated April 5 judgment and an amended judgment issued on November 16, 1993.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) and Vacated Judgments

Application: The vacating of the initial April 5 judgment under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) led to the dismissal of related appeals as they became ineffective.

Reasoning: According to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), as the earlier judgment was vacated, appeals related to it are ineffective and were therefore dismissed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Motion for Relief from Judgment

Application: The district court's denial of Hallco's Rule 60(b) motion rendered the request to hold appeals in abeyance moot.

Reasoning: The district court denied Hallco's Rule 60(b) motion, rendering Hallco's request moot.

Premature Appeals and Their Dismissal

Application: The court dismissed several appeals as premature due to procedural deficiencies stemming from the vacated judgment.

Reasoning: The court ordered that Hallco's motion to hold the appeals in abeyance is moot, granted Foster's motion for a supplemental response, and dismissed appeals nos. 94-1014, 94-1032, 94-1036, and 94-1047 as premature.