Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Union Packing Co., 74--1591
| Decision Date | 06 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1591,74--1591 |
| Parties | CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee, v. UNION PACKING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Timothy J. McReynolds, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
Andrew E. Grimm, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, CLARK, Associate Justice, * and LAY, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on petition of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company to relax our prior mandate 1 to allow prejudgment interest on the judgment entered. Petitioner asserts that prejudgment interest is correctable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) or, alternatively under Rule 60(b). We decline to reopen the mandate. This circuit does not view the erroneous allowance or omission of prejudgment interest to be a clerical error within the purview of Rule 60(a). See Hoffman v. Celebrezze, 405 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1969). Alternate relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) is denied because the rule requires a Rule 60(b)(1) motion be made not more than one year after judgment was entered. Relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) is denied since appellee has failed to show 'an (exceptional) situation exists which entitles (it) to relief.' Hansen v. United States, 340 F.2d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1965).
The petition to relax the mandate is denied.
* Associate Justice Tom C. Clark, United States Supreme Court, Retired, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Life Ins. Co., New York v. Equitable Equipment Co., Inc.
...pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). See Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Charles Carter & Co., 621 F.2d at 742; Chicago & N.W.R. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592, 592 (8th Cir.1976) (per curiam). National Surety, however, does not compel us to adopt the "exceptional situation" standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. ......
-
Scola v. Boat Frances, R., Inc., 79-1169
...may not be extended. The error, as one of law, could not be corrected out of time under Rule 60(a). See Chicago & Northwestern Ry. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1976) (failure to include interest in judgment for freight charged not a clerical error within the purview of Rule ......
-
Dursteler v. Dursteler
...For instance, Williams v. Idaho Potato Starch Co., 73 Idaho 13, 245 P.2d 1045 (1952), and Chicago and N.W.R.R. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir.1976), relate to discretionary prejudgment, not postjudgment, interest. Similarly, Gilroy v. Erie-Lackawanna Ry., 44 F.R.D. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1......
-
Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
...would significantly weaken the policy of finality as embodied in the Federal Rules." Id. In Chicago and North Western Railway Co. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam), the petitioner sought an amendment of a judgment to allow an award of pre-judgment interest. The......