Cardillo by Cardillo v. U.S., Docket No. 85-6050

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore VAN GRAAFEILAND and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and LASKER; VAN GRAAFEILAND
Citation767 F.2d 33
Docket NumberDocket No. 85-6050
Decision Date05 July 1985
PartiesSandra L. CARDILLO, Deceased, who brings this action by her Executor, Charles D. CARDILLO, of the Estate and, Charles D. Cardillo, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 33

767 F.2d 33
2 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1443
Sandra L. CARDILLO, Deceased, who brings this action by her
Executor, Charles D. CARDILLO, of the Estate and,
Charles D. Cardillo, Individually,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 85-6050.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued April 30, 1985.
Decided July 5, 1985.

Paul A. Krez, Great Neck, N.Y. (Pegalis & Wachsman, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y., James M.S. Ullman, Meriden, Conn., Clifford J. Shoemaker, Vienna, Va., of counsel) for plaintiff-appellee.

William G. Cole and Robert E. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and LASKER, District Judge. *

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:

On November 15, 1984, following a non-jury trial before Judge Daly in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, judgment against the United States in the amount of $5 million, "plus

Page 34

interest at the statutory rate from the date of judgment", was awarded to Charles Cardillo, individually and as executor of the estate of Sandra L. Cardillo, deceased. The judgment was based on a finding that Mrs. Cardillo's injuries and death were caused by the administration of swine flu vaccine. On November 26, 1984, the Government moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) and (e) for a new trial or the alteration of the judgment on the ground that the judgment was incorrect as a matter of law or, in the alternative, that the court abused its discretion in assessing damages. The motion was timely because the ten-day period for filing a Rule 59 motion expired on a Sunday. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a).

On December 28, 1984, the district court stapled to the foot of the Government's motion a typewritten statement which read:

December 28, 1984. The motion is denied except to the extent that the judgment entered by the Clerk of the Court on November 15, 1984 is amended to award interest only insofar as federal law allows.

The amendment was necessitated by the fact that interest against the Government on a judgment under the Federal Tort Claims Act may be paid only when the judgment becomes final after review on appeal by the Government, and then only from the date of the filing of the transcript of the judgment with the Comptroller General through the day before the date of the mandate of affirmance. Reminga v. United States, 695 F.2d 1000, 1002 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086, 103 S.Ct. 1778, 76 L.Ed.2d 349 (1983); Rooney v. United States, 694 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1982); 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1304(b)(1)(A), successor to 31 U.S.C. Sec. 724a.

On January 3, 1985,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • RR Village Ass'n, Inc. v. Denver Sewer Corp., No. 803
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 26, 1987
    ...295 (1981). Although a one-sentence order denying a motion satisfies the separate-document requirement, see Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1985); United States v. Clearfield State Bank, 497 F.2d 356, 359 (10th Cir.1974), an order that is part of a district court opinion or m......
  • Orshan v. Macchiarola, No. 79 CV 309 (ERN).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • February 28, 1986
    ...See Scola v. Boat Frances R., Inc., 618 F.2d 147 (1st Cir.1980) (discussion therein); see also Cardillo by Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1985); cf. In Re Frigitemp Corp., 781 F.2d 324 (2d Cir.1986); Goodman v. Heublein, Inc., 682 F.2d 44, 47 n. 2 (2d Cir.1982); Cibro Pe......
  • Andrulonis v. U.S., No. 1124
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 1, 1994
    ...and the interest runs through the day before the date of the appellate court's mandate affirming that judgment. Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33, 34 (2d Applying this statute, Judge Munson ruled that Andrulonis was entitled to postjudgment interest on the primary judgment from the dat......
  • Ewing v. Ruml, Nos. 17
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 13, 1989
    ...has been granted and what has been denied and the date when this has occurred for purposes of appeal. See Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1985). However, where, as here, the appeals are timely and the district court's disposition of the case is undisputed, we may accept the a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • RR Village Ass'n, Inc. v. Denver Sewer Corp., No. 803
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 26, 1987
    ...295 (1981). Although a one-sentence order denying a motion satisfies the separate-document requirement, see Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1985); United States v. Clearfield State Bank, 497 F.2d 356, 359 (10th Cir.1974), an order that is part of a district court opinion or m......
  • Orshan v. Macchiarola, No. 79 CV 309 (ERN).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • February 28, 1986
    ...See Scola v. Boat Frances R., Inc., 618 F.2d 147 (1st Cir.1980) (discussion therein); see also Cardillo by Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1985); cf. In Re Frigitemp Corp., 781 F.2d 324 (2d Cir.1986); Goodman v. Heublein, Inc., 682 F.2d 44, 47 n. 2 (2d Cir.1982); Cibro Pe......
  • Andrulonis v. U.S., No. 1124
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 1, 1994
    ...and the interest runs through the day before the date of the appellate court's mandate affirming that judgment. Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33, 34 (2d Applying this statute, Judge Munson ruled that Andrulonis was entitled to postjudgment interest on the primary judgment from the dat......
  • Ewing v. Ruml, Nos. 17
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 13, 1989
    ...has been granted and what has been denied and the date when this has occurred for purposes of appeal. See Cardillo v. United States, 767 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.1985). However, where, as here, the appeals are timely and the district court's disposition of the case is undisputed, we may accept the a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT