Opinion ID: 741730
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Power of an Appellate Court to Modify a Mandate

Text: 44 The defendants' motion to recall the mandate in Ute Indian Tribe III requires us first to ask whether an appellate court possesses the authority to recall or modify a mandate after the time for rehearing has passed. In this circuit, as in all circuits that have addressed the issue, an appellate court has power to set aside at any time a mandate that was procured by fraud or act to prevent an injustice, or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Coleman v. Turpen, 827 F.2d 667, 671 (10th Cir.1987); see also American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 560 F.2d 589, 593 n. 15 (3d Cir.1977) (listing cases); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 463 F.2d 268, 275-80 (D.C.Cir.1971) (discussing particular grounds for recalling a mandate). Although the rule is stated in broad terms, the appellate courts have emphasized that the power to recall or modify a mandate is limited and should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. See American Iron & Steel Inst., 560 F.2d at 594 (emphasizing that recall of a mandate is an extraordinary remedy, one to be used sparingly). 2 The limited nature of this power is a reflection of the importance of finality: once parties are afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the controversy must come to an end and courts must be able to clear their dockets of decided cases. As the Third Circuit explained, [P]arties should be afforded ample opportunity to litigate their claims, but once a final disposition is reached they should not expect that the good offices of the court will be available for a chance to press their claims anew. Id. at 592. Mindful of the important limitations on an appellate court's power to disrupt a settled judgment, we next address whether we are precluded from modifying the mandate in Ute Indian Tribe III under the principles of collateral estoppel or res judicata.