United States v. 1,431.80 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., CROSS CTY., ARK., 72-1443.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1443.,72-1443. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. 1,431.80 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN CROSS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
J. L. Shaver, Wynne, Ark., for appellees.
Carl Strass, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., in opposition to appellee's motion to dismiss.
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
This condemnation suit was tried by a jury on the issue of title and just compensation in United States District Court. After the entry of final judgment, the trial judge amended the judgment to correct the dates of the trial. Thereafter, the United States, the condemnor, filed a notice of appeal and the case was docketed in this Court. The appellee has made a motion to dismiss the government's appeal pursuant to Eighth Circuit Rule 8, alleging it was not brought within the 60-day time limit allowed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).
To present the problem specifically, the relevant docket entries in the United States District Court are herewith set out:
3-28-72 Jury trial began before
Judge Williams
3-31-72 Jury verdict awarding
$20,700 for tract 433E
4-6-72 Final judgment by Judge
Williams filed. Just compensation
on Tract 433E
$20,700
5-8-72 Amendment to judgment by
Judge Williams filed
Dates of trial on issue of
just compensation corrected
5-26-72 Disbursement order filed.
7-5-72 Notice of appeal filed by
United States.
The Court must decide whether the amendment to the judgment which merely corrected the dates of the trial1 operates to start anew the 60-day period in which to file the notice of appeal.
If the amendment can be viewed as a final judgment, then the 60-day period can be started anew. A final judgment is a court's act which disposes of the matter under consideration in a manner which clearly indicates the judge's intention that the act is a final one. Carnes v. United States, 279 F.2d 378, 379-380 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 846, 81 S.Ct. 88, 5 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1960). An immaterial change in a judgment previously entered does not toll the time in which review must be sought. FTC v. Minneapolis Honeywell Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211, 73 S.Ct. 245, 97 L.Ed. 245 (1952). The record in the instant case indicates that the amendment was a sua sponte action by the trial judge to correct a clerical error in the final judgment and did not in any material way affect the final judgment entered on April 6, 1972. Therefore, the amendment can not be treated as a final judgment which would start anew the time period in which to appeal.
The appellant contends the disbursement order entered after the April 6 final judgment indicates that the District Court continued to retain jurisdiction and "obviously had not issued a final order." This Circuit has held that the mere retention of jurisdiction for future ministerial orders does not withhold the finality required to make the order appealable. Sykes v. United States, 392 F.2d 735, 738 (8th Cir.1968). In the instant case, the order of distribution can be considered ministerial since the order of April 6, 1972, decided the substance of the controversy.
The appellant contends that the amendment should be considered a correction of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)2 and, as such, that the time period for filing the notice of appeal should start anew. Although we view the trial judge's amendment as one pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) does not specify Rule 60(a) as being a procedural exception to the mandatory time limits for filing an appeal. The entry of an order correcting a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Martinez
... ... 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1626 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, ... See United States v. 1,431.80 Acres of Land, ... Page 1252 ... 466 F.2d 820, 822 ... ...
-
Peabody Coal Co. v. LOCAL U. NOS. 1734, 1508 & 1548, UMW
...recognized that the intent of the judge is an important and relevant factor to consider. See, United States v. 1,431.80 Acres of Land in Cross County, Arkansas, 466 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Evans, 365 F.2d 95, 97 (10th Cir. 1966); Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., ......
-
Hattersley v. Bollt
...$250,000. 11 Where actual payment awaits only a future ministerial order, finality is not lacking. See United States v. 1,431.80 Acres of Land, 466 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 1972). Since Bollt's claim against Lazovitz has thus been effectively established "both as to liability and as to amoun......
-
Connecticut Bank and Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...Board, 535 F.2d 758, 760-61 (3d Cir.1976); cf. Hattersley v. Bollt, 512 F.2d 209, 213-14 (3d Cir.1975); United States v. 1,431.80 Acres of Land, 466 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir.1972). We have similarly found no final order when summary judgments dispose of the liability issue, yet leave the issu......