# Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya

> Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · February 27, 1991 · 926 F.2d 103

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481342

## Case

- **Full name:** Elizabeth ROQUE-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Hon. Jose LEMA MOYA, Et Al., Defendants, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- **Decided:** February 27, 1991
- **Citations:** 926 F.2d 103; 18 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1279; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3105; 1991 WL 22956
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Torruella
- **Judges:** Torruella, Selya, Pollak
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481342

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[t]he march of time began” for the period in which to file a Rule 59(e) motion on the date the court entered an order that was “immediately appealable”
- noting that although brevity is permissible on summary judgment motions, "a bench decision or memorandum' which explicates the trial court’s thinking will often prove to be of inestimable value to the litigants and to a reviewing court”
- noting that restrictions on pendent jurisdiction are “self-imposed” and mean that “interlocutory review of a qualified immunity order does not in and of itself confer jurisdiction over other contested issues in the case”
- noting that the First Circuit has “refrained” from exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction, but characterizing the Circuit’s practice as “self-imposed”

## Opinion text

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
For the reasons expressed in my dissent in Nuñez-Soto v. Alvarado, 918 F.2d 1029 (1st Cir.1990) (Torruella, J., dissenting), I am forced to reach a different conclusion than my colleagues in this case. I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481342. Public record. Not legal advice.