# Alexander v. Washington

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · November 7, 1997 · 707 So. 2d 254

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7712891

## Case

- **Full name:** Margaret Alexander and Eddie Chambers v. James Washington and Dorothy Washington.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** November 7, 1997
- **Citations:** 707 So. 2d 254; 1997 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 889; 1997 WL 694747
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robertson
- **Judges:** Monroe, Yates, Thompson, Robertson, Crawley
- **Cited by:** 3 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/7712891

## Opinion text

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge,
concurring in the result.
While I cannot agree with the majority that Chambers and Alexander’s amended Rule 60(b) motion requested the trial court, pursuant to Rule 59(e), to alter, amend, or vacate its order denying their initial Rule 60(b) motion from relief from judgment, I agree with the majority that this court nevertheless has jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order denying their amended Rule 60(b) motion in this case. The denial of a second Rule 60(b) motion that states new or additional grounds for relief from a judgment than those stated in a previous Rule 60(b) motion is appealable. See, e.g., Hines v. Seaboard Air Line R.R., 341 F.2d 229 (2d Cir.1965). Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7712891. Public record. Not legal advice.