Vernon M. Ellis v. Elliott L. Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 471 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Vernon M. Ellis v. Elliott L. Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 471 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1990 · …whether the lower court, in its second order, has disturbed or revised legal rights and obligations which, by its prior judgment, had been plainly and properly settled with finality. ⚠ not in text
37 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: David Moore v. Florida Department of Corrections (ca11, 2024-08-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Moore v. Florida Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973); Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Shafer v. Muro
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Charles L.M. v. Northeast Independent School Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870-71 (5th Cir. 1989); Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Stafflink
5th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
As a result, “where an appellant files a second motion to reconsider ‘based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion,’ the filing of the second motion does not interrupt the running of the time for appeal.” Id. (quoting Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973)). 2 Case: 21-20066 Document: 00515977903 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2021 No. 21-20066 Here, Thomas’s first Rule 60(b) motion was timely filed and interrupted the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mandell Rhodes, Jr. v. Nathaniel Quarterman
5th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Disk, 884 F.2d 869, 870-71 (5th Cir.1989); Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mittie Fleming v. Uncle Bob Storage Inc. Sovran
5th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir.1989); Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) White v. Apollo Group
5th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Burnside, 519 F.2d at 1128 ; Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 720-21 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sandra Cano v. Thurbert E. Baker
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
P.] 4(a) does not again terminate the running of the time for appeal”); Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973); see also Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 259 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Securities & Exchange Commission v. Dowdell
10th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
To be considered a successive motion for reconsideration, the second motion must be “based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion.” Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 720 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carattini v. Collazo Systems Analysis, Inc.
prsupreme · 2003 · confidence medium
School Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5to Cir. 1989), citando a Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5to Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Curry v. Puckett
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 720 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes
1st Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
The Charles L.M. court explained the difference between an initial motion for reconsideration and successive reconsideration motions as follows: “[W]here an appellant files a second motion to reconsider 'based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion/ the filing of the second motion does not interrupt the running of the time for appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed." 884 F.2d at 870 (quoting Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam)); see Hernandez, 22 F.3d at 390 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes
1st Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
The Charles L.M. court explained the difference between ____________ an initial motion for reconsideration and successive reconsideration motions as follows: "[W]here an appellant files a second motion to reconsider 'based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion,' the filing of the second motion does not interrupt the running of the time for appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed." 884 F.2d at 870 (quoting Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th _____ __________ Cir. 1973) (per curiam)); see Hernandez, 29 F.3d at 390.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) U.S. v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973); Harrell v. Dixon Bay Transportation Co., 718 F.2d 123, 127 (5th Cir. 1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup, Robert Quintanilla-Buendia
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973); Harrell v. Dixon Bay Transportation Co., 718 F.2d 123, 127 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sidney H. Wright, III v. Preferred Research, Inc., a Georgia Corp.
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Similarly, where the movant pleads substantially the same grounds in a second motion to reconsider as he did in his original pleading, Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973), or seeks reconsideration of an amended order that does not enlarge upon a previously reconsidered order, Dixie Sand & Gravel Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 631 F.2d 73, 75 (5th Cir.1980), then the time limit is not tolled.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles L.M., Susan R.M. By Her Next Friend, Charles L.M. v. Northeast Independent School District
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Hamid v. State of Michigan
5th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited "see" Anthony Valentine v. BAC Home Loans Servicing
11th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973); see also Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3950.4 (4th ed.) (collecting cases).
cited Cited "see" Johnnie Eleby, Wife Of/and Edward Charles v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see" Moore v. St. Louis Music Supply Co.
8th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam); Hicklin v. Edwards, 222 F.2d 921, 922 (8th Cir. 1955) (per curiam); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 204.12[1] (1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James A. Latham, Marian E. Latham, Movant-Appellant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720 (5th Cir.1973) (successive Rule 59 motions); Ratcliff v. State of Texas, 714 F.2d 24 (5th Cir.1983) (Rule 60(b) motion to attack denial of earlier post-trial motion).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720 (5th Cir.1973) (successive Rule 59 motions); Ratcliff v. State of Texas, 714 F.2d 24 (5th Cir.1983) (Rule 60(b) motion to attack denial of earlier post-trial motion).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edgar Allen Harrell, Cross-Appellee v. Dixon Bay Transportation Company, Cross-Appellant
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1973) (appellant’s second Rule 59 motion asking the trial court to reconsider the denial of his first Rule 59 motion did not postpone the time for appeal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vernon M. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Elliott L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Defendant-Appellee
72-2952.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 4, 1973.
471 F.2d 720
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12325
H. H. Gearinger, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Kathryn Baldwin, Eric B. Chaikin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Thornberry, Coleman, Ingraham.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant instituted this action in the district court seeking to review a denial of social security disability benefits. The district court issued an order of dismissal which was timely followed by appellant's Rule 59 motion [1] to reconsider. Such motion was denied. Appellant filed another motion to reconsider under Rule 59 based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion. The second motion was likewise denied.

[*721] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a), appellant had sixty days from the entry of the order of dismissal to file a notice of appeal. The filing of the first Rule 59 motion terminated the running of the time for the appeal, but the second such motion based upon the same grounds did not.

In this case appellant had sixty days from the denial of his first Rule 59 motion in which to file notice of appeal. Having failed to do so, we are therefore without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claim and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed.