In the 1990 case of Firstier Mortgage Company v. Investors Mortgage Insurance Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a notice of appeal filed after announcement but before entry of judgment could be effective. The dispute arose from an insurance claim made by Firstier against Investors following several defaulted loans that were insured under their agreement. After losing in District Court, Firstier attempted to file an appeal prior to formal entry of judgement being recorded - this was initially deemed premature and dismissed by the Appeals court. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was ruled that such appeals should not be dismissed as long as there is no prejudice to any party involved due to timing issues; instead they should be held in abeyance until judgement is entered officially on record. This decision clarified procedural rules regarding when notices for appeal can effectively be filed within federal courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Firstier Mortgage Company v. Investors Mortgage Insurance Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to remand the case back to a lower court for further proceedings was unnecessary and inconsistent with precedent. The dissent contended that there were no factual disputes warranting such action and believed that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Firstier Mortgage Company. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "loss" under Massachusetts law, arguing instead that loss should be defined as an actual financial detriment suffered by Investors Mortgage Insurance Company due to its own actions or omissions rather than potential future losses based on hypothetical scenarios. Furthermore, they criticized the majority’s reliance on extrinsic evidence when interpreting ambiguous contract terms without first attempting to discern their meaning from within four corners of contract itself.