Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
- Decided
- November 29, 1982
- Docket
- 82-5082
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,910 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (1 of 8 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Hatfield v. Board of County Commissioners
What later courts said
- holding that timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional and that appeal filed outside the time limits is a "nullity" — Wilma Williams v. Kfc National Management Company (2004)
- holding that a notice of appeal filed prior to the disposition of a Rule 59(e) motion is “nullified” — Kersey v. Dennison Manufacturing Co. (1993)
- holding that the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal — Society of Lloyd's v. Bennett (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Per Curiam.
The petition for certiorari questions the validity of a notice of appeal filed after the entry of the District Court’s judgment but while the appellant’s motion to alter or amend that judgment remained pending in the District Court.
[*57] The petitioners brought this civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking statutory damages for an alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 82 Stat. 146, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z of the Federal Reserve Board, 12 CFR §226.1 et seq. (1982). On December 24, 1980, the District Court granted the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the respondent’s disclosure of its security interests in after-acquired property had been inaccurate and misleading. 503 F. Supp. 246. On November 5, 1981, the District Court entered an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) directing that a final judgment be entered. On November 12, the respondent filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. On November 19, while that motion was still pending, the respondent filed a notice of appeal. On November 23, the District Court denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment. Neither the opinion below nor the response to the petition for a writ of certiorari indicates that any further notice of appeal was filed.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.