Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal filed while a timely Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion remained pending had no effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The Court concluded that the premature notice was a nullity, vacated the Third Circuit's judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A notice of appeal filed before disposition of a timely Rule 59 motion has no effect; the appellant must file a new notice of appeal within the prescribed time after the motion is resolved.
2. The Court of Appeals may not invoke Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to give effect to a notice of appeal that Rule 4(a)(4) renders a nullity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a notice of appeal filed while a timely Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment is pending has legal effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4).
2. Whether the Court of Appeals may use Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to waive the defect in a premature notice of appeal and exercise jurisdiction.

Disposition

vacated