Court Opinion

ID: 9458019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:40:50.377138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:36.699444
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
The final sentence of F.R.A.P. 37, which provides: “If a judgment is modified or reversed with a direction that a judgment for money be entered in the district court, the mandate shall contain instructions with respect to allowance of interest.”, fits this case like a glove. Neither our prior opinion directing the entry of a money judgment by the court below nor our mandate entered thereon,, contained any instructions with respect to the allowance of interest. The second paragraph of the advisory committee’s note makes it clear that this sentence was included in the rule to remind of and ameliorate the result of Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. R., 334 U.S. 304, 68 S. Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948).
I would hold that the only proper procedure was to seek recall of our prior mandate and its amendment. Since I concur in the opinion of Judge Dyer on the merits of the interest question, I concur in the result.