Nelle Cloyd v. Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Robert M. Rubin and Patricia Cohen v. Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, Richard A. Barnhart, Danny L. Todd, and Gregory A. Todd (6th Cir. 1997)
- Patrick T. Reid v. White Motor Corporation John T. Grigsby, Jr., Disposition Assets Trustee for White Motor Corporation (6th Cir. 1989)
- Daniel Diamond, by His Mother Justine Diamond v. Floretta McKenzie (D.C. Cir. 1985)
- Christopher Hunter v. United States (6th Cir. 2019)
- Green v. Nevers (6th Cir. 1999)
- Gabriel Levine v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (2d Cir. 1993)
- Levine v. Federal Deposit Insurance (2d Cir. 1993)
- Reid v. White Motor Corp. (6th Cir. 1989)
- Lupo v. R. Rowland & Co. (8th Cir. 1988)
- Banco Central y Economias v. Lozano (In re Lozano) (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1984)
- Carlton v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Carlton) (District Court, D. New Mexico 1981)
- Caperton v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Co. (4th Cir. 1978)
- Joseph Taylor v. W. L. Sterrett (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Wilbur E. Dean and Dolores C. Dean (6th Cir. 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This case is before the court on cross-motions. The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss or affirm. The appellant has filed a motion for summary reversal and alternative petition for a writ of mandamus. All motions have been re *486 ferred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 3(e), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Following remand of this case on a previous appeal the District Judge filed, and the clerk of the district court entered, a document styled “Judgment and Order.” This document set forth certain findings of the court and its reasoning in reaching a conclusion on the issue referred to it by our remand. The document also contained a specific order for the payment of an attorney fee. The clerk did not sign or enter a separate judgment as required by Rule 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. A docket entry is not sufficient. Strict compliance with Rule 58 is required. United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973); Richland Trust Co. v. Federal Insurance Co., 480 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1973); Communications Workers of America v. United Telephone Co. of Ohio, 491 F.2d 207 (6th Cir. 1974); Columbus Coated Fabrics v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 498 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1974). The fact that the document which the judge signed was styled “Judgment and Order” is immaterial. The rule requires that there be a “separate document” which is distinct from any other document entered in the case, including an opinion or memorandum. United States v. Indrelunas, supra; Notes of Advisory Committee following Rule 58; 6A J. Moore, Federal Practice para. 58.04 [4.-1], at 58-161 (1972).
In a response to appellant’s cross-motion, appellee complains that the appellant waited four months before raising the issue of the district court’s failure to enter a separate judgment. The Supreme Court found such an argument unavailing in United States v. Indrelunas, supra, 411 U.S. at 221, 93 S.Ct. 1562.
The case is remanded to the district court for entry of a separate judgment in accordance with Rule 58. It is from that document with its new date that an appeal may be taken.
So ordered. Each party will pay its own costs on appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.