Chicago & North W. Ry. Co., a Corp. v. Union Packing Co., a Corp., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Chicago & North W. Ry. Co., a Corp. v. Union Packing Co., a Corp., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EPAC Technologies, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc.
M.D. Tenn. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592, 592 (8th Cir. 1976) (denying prejudgment interest under Rule 60(b)(6) where appellee failed to show an exceptional situation entitling it to relief).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Home Life Insurance Company, New York, Cross-Appellant v. Equitable Equipment Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Charles Carter & Co., 621 F.2d at 742; Chicago & N.W.R. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592, 592 (8th Cir.1976) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" William C. Waggoner v. R. McGray Inc.
9th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chicago & North Western R.R. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592, 592 (8th Cir.1976).
cited Cited "see" Robert Stern v. Kenneth Shouldice
6th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see" Sebastian Scola v. Boat Frances, R., Inc.
1st Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chicago & Northwestern Ry. v. Union Packing Co., 527 F.2d 592 (8th Cir. 1976) (failure to include interest in judgment for freight charged not a clerical error within the purview of Rule 60(a)); Warner v. City of Bay St.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee,
v.
UNION PACKING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
74--1591.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 6, 1976.
527 F.2d 592
Timothy J. McReynolds, Omaha, Neb., for appellant., Andrew E. Grimm, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.
Clark, Gibson, Lay, Per Curiam.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, CLARK, Associate Justice, * and LAY, Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM.

This matter comes on petition of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company to relax our prior mandate [1] to' allow prejudgment interest on the -judgment entered. Petitioner asserts that pre judgment interest is correctable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) or, alternatively under Rule 60(b). We decline to reopen the mandate. This circuit does not view the erroneous allowance or omission of pre judgment interest to be a clerical error within the purview of Rule 60(a). See Hoffman v. Celebrezze, 405 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1969). Alternate relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) is denied because the rule requires a Rule 60(b)(1) motion be made not more than one year after judgment was entered. Relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) is denied since appellee has failed to show “an [exceptional] situation exists which entitles [it] to relief.” Hansen v. United States, 340 F.2d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1965).

The petition to relax the mandate is denied.

1

. See Chicago & North Western R.R. v. Union Packing Co., 514 F.2d 30 (8th Cir. 1975).