Osterneck et al. v. Ernst & Whinney (489 U.S. 169)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 21, 1989 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 489 U.S. 169 · 109 S. Ct. 987
- Decided
- February 21, 1989
- Term
- October Term 1988
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) provides that if any party files a timely motion “under Rule 59 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] to alter or amend the judgment,” a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of that motion “shall have no effect.” In this case, we decide whether a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest filed after the entry of judgment constitutes a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment and renders ineffective any notice of appeal filed before a ruling on that motion. If we decide the question in the affirmative, we are asked to decide whether this case nevertheless falls within the so-called “unique circumstances” exception to the timely appeal requirement announced in Thompson v. INS, 375 U. S. 384 (1964) (per curiam). I The history of this case is complex but can be stated in a summary way. In September 1969, the Cavalier Bag Company merged into E. T. Barwick Industries, Inc. (Barwick Industries). The Osternecks, owners of Cavalier and petitioners here, approved the merger and exchanged their stock in Cavalier for stock in Barwick Industries. In approving the transaction, petitioners allegedly relied on financial statements of Barwick Industries prepared by Ernst & Whinney, an independent certified public accounting firm and the respondent here. Sometime later,…
Excerpt of a 18,181-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.