United States v. Indrelunas 8212 805
| Decision Date | 16 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72,72 |
| Citation | 36 L.Ed.2d 202,93 S.Ct. 1562,411 U.S. 216 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. Aphonse T. INDRELUNAS. —805 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Government, petitioner here, appealed to the Court of Appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent entered by the District Court on February 25, 1971. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that final judgment had been entered in the action prior to February 25, 1971, and that therefore the Government's appeal was untimely under the provisions of Fed.Rule App.Proc. 4. Foiles v. United States, 465 F.2d 163 (CA7 1972). Since both parties implicitly concede that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was based on the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, making final decisions of the district courts appealable, the correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision depends on whether the District Court's judgment of February 25, 1971, was a final decision.1 That question, in turn, depends on whether actions taken in the District Court previous to the February date amounted to the 'entry of judgment' as that term is used in Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 58.2
Rule 58 provides in pertinent part that '(e)very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document.' There was admittedly no such separate document filed in the District Court in this case prior to the February date, but the Court of Appeals held that the 'separate document' requirement of Rule 58 was applicable only to those judgments described in clause (2) of the first sentence of the Rule, and that since the relief granted by the District Court in this action was not within the description contained in that clause, a 'separate document' was not essential to the existence of a judgment. The Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that its holding was contrary to holdings of the Courts of Appeals for the Third. Fifth, and Tenth Circuits, respectively. 465 F.2d, at 167.3 A conflict on an issue such as this is of importance and concern to every litigant in a federal court, since, as this case makes clear, the timeliness of appeals, as well as the timeliness of post-trial motions, may turn on the question of when judgment is entered. Consideration of the petition for certiorari and the response has led us to conclude that further briefs and oral arguments would not materially assist in our disposition of the case and, for the reasons hereafter stated, we grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The underlying dispute between the Government and respondent related to the latter's liability to pay withholding taxes due from a corporation in which he was an officer. Respondent and one Foiles, a fellow corporate officer, were assessed for the unpaid taxes, made partial payments on the assessments, and then unsuccessfully pursued administrative remedies seeking a refund. At the conclusion of these efforts Foiles sued in the District Court for a refund. The Government answered, counter claimed against Foiles for the balance due on the assessment, and filed a third-party complaint seeking like recovery against respondent. Issue was joined, trial had to a jury, and verdicts in the following form were returned in favor of both taxpayers:
'We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Harry H. Foiles, and against the defendant, United States of America, in the amount claimed. . . .
'We, the jury, find against the defendant, United States of America, on the counterclaim, and in favor of the plaintiff, Harry H. Foiles. . . .
'We, the jury, find against the third-party plaintiff, United States of America, and in favor of the third-party defendant, Alphonse T. Indrelunas.'
The District Court's civil docket entry following the recital of these forms of verdict contains the language
There was apparently no agreement as to the exact amount respondent and Foiles were to receive pursuant to the jury's verdict at the time it was returned. On May 14, 1970, some 14 months later, a stipulation was filed in the District Court specifying the amount of refund to be paid to each of the prevailing parties. Within 60 days of this date, the Government filed a notice of appeal as to Foiles only, but this appeal was not pursued. Some eight months later, on motion by the Government, the District Court on February 25, 1971, entered formal judgments, the one in favor of respondent being in the amount of $3,621.32 against the Government. The Government's notice of appeal was from this judgment.
The Court of Appeals, in holding the Government's notice of appeal untimely, decided that judgment had been actually entered on March 21, 1969, when the District Court clerk entered in the civil docket the notations described above. It held that the 'separate document' requirement contained in Rule 58 applies only to the 'complex' judgments described in clause (2) of that Rule. The court said that:
'(W)hen the jury verdict is clear and unequivocal, setting forth a general verdict with reference to the sole question of liability and where nothing remains to be decided and when no opinion or memorandum is written, as is the situation described in clause (1) of Rule 58, there is no requirement for a separate document to start the time limits for appeal running.' 465 F.2d, at 167—168.
Rule 58 was substantially amended in 1963 to remove uncertainties as to when a judgment is entered and to expedite the entry of judgment by limiting the number of situations in which the court need rely on counsel for the prevailing party to prepare a form of judgment. The first sentence of the rule describes 'simple' judgments, providing for recovery of only a sum certain, of costs, or of nothing. These clause (1) judgments are to be prepared, signed, and entered by the clerk without direction by the court. Clause (2) of that sentence deals with the more 'complex' forms of judgment, which are to be entered by the clerk after the court approves the form of the judgment. The rule then continues that '(e)very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document,' and further states that '(a) judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a).'
The reason for the 'separate document' provision is clear from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boccardo v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...applied in order to avoid new uncertainties as to the date on which a judgment is entered." (United States v. Indrelunas (1973) 411 U.S. 216, 221-222, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 1564-1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 202.) A judgment which does not meet this requirement is ineffective. (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 58.) T......
-
Willhauck v. Halpin, No. 91-1328
...judgment and the running of the time for appeal. See, e.g., Willhauck v. Halpin, 919 F.2d at 793 (citing United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973)). While it is apparent that it was the intention of the district court on February 25th to resolve all out......
-
Shalala v. Schaefer
...separate document" and provides that "[a] judgment is effective only when so set forth." See United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 220, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 1564, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973) (per curiam). Since the District Court's April 4 remand order was a final judgment, see ante, at ____, a "s......
-
Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors
...and no one need appeal until the formal judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 has been entered. United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 220-22, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 1564-65, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973). Sometimes a party may appeal from a final decision not embodied in a judgment, see Bankers Trust Co. v. ......
-
An Analysis of Remittitur's Effects on the Timing to File a Notice of Appeal.
...these uncertainties, ... Rule 58 was amended to require that a judgment was to be effective only when set forth on a separate document." 411 U.S. 216, 220 (1973) (citation omitted). In Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, the Court later held that an appellate court may deem Rule 59's separate docu......
-
Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
...judgment “on a separate document” and provides that “[a] judgment is effective only when so set forth.” See United States v. Indrelunas , 411 U.S. 216, 220, 36 L.Ed. 2d 202, 93 S.Ct. 1562 (1973) (per curiam). Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993). What happens if one of the part......
-
Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
...judgment “on a separate document” and provides that “[a] judgment is effective only when so set forth.” See United States v. Indrelunas , 411 U.S. 216, 220, 36 L.Ed. 2d 202, 93 S.Ct. 1562 (1973) (per curiam). Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993). What happens if one of the part......