United States v. Indrelunas
411 U.S. 216, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 84, 36 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, a judgment is not final and effective, and the time for appeal does not begin to run, until the judgment is set forth on a separate document. This is a mechanical requirement that applies to all judgments, regardless of their complexity.
Facts:
- The United States Government assessed Alphonse T. Indrelunas and Harry H. Foiles, officers of a corporation, for unpaid withholding taxes.
- Indrelunas and Foiles made partial payments toward the assessed tax liability.
- Both individuals then pursued administrative remedies seeking a refund of the amounts they had paid.
- Their administrative claims for a refund were unsuccessful, leading to the underlying legal dispute over their tax liability.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry H. Foiles sued the United States in a federal district court for a tax refund.
- The Government filed a counterclaim against Foiles and a third-party complaint against Alphonse T. Indrelunas for the unpaid tax balance.
- Following a jury trial on March 21, 1969, verdicts were returned in favor of both Foiles and Indrelunas.
- The district court clerk made a docket entry stating, 'Enter judgment on the verdicts. Jury discharged,' but no separate judgment document was filed.
- On May 14, 1970, the parties filed a stipulation specifying the exact refund amounts owed.
- On February 25, 1971, upon the Government's motion, the District Court entered a formal judgment for Indrelunas on a separate document.
- The Government (appellant) filed a notice of appeal from the February 25, 1971 judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit against Indrelunas (appellee).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, ruling that final judgment had been entered with the clerk's docket entry on March 21, 1969.
- The Government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58's requirement that '[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document' apply to all judgments, including simple money judgments, for the purpose of determining when the time for appeal begins to run?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A judgment is effective only when set forth on a separate document, and this requirement must be mechanically applied to all judgments to ensure certainty for litigants. The 1963 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 was specifically designed to eliminate the uncertainty that previously existed regarding when a judgment was officially entered, which is critical for determining the deadlines for filing appeals and post-trial motions. The plain language, '[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document,' does not distinguish between simple and complex judgments. Therefore, a mere docket entry reflecting a jury verdict is insufficient to trigger the time for appeal; a separate, formal judgment document is required.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'separate document' rule of FRCP 58 as a bright-line, mandatory requirement, resolving a circuit split and establishing a uniform national standard. It prioritizes procedural certainty and predictability over a flexible, case-by-case analysis of finality. By mandating a 'mechanical application' of the rule, the Court ensured that litigants would have a clear and unambiguous event—the filing of a separate judgment document—to signal the start of critical post-judgment timelines, thereby reducing litigation over procedural timeliness itself.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Indrelunas