holding that party seeking relief from judgment entered upon asserted legal error pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) must file motion for such relief within time period permitted for appeal
How later courts described this case
- holding that party seeking relief from judgment entered upon asserted legal error pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) must file motion for such relief within time period permitted for appeal
- holding that a party that waived its appeal by letting the 60-day time limit for appeal run could not revive that right by filing a Rule 60(b) motion
- addressing deliberate choice of omitting her testimony at trial. If the a Rule 60(b) motion in a social security case and treating the district court’s decision was allowed to stand, then other phrases “abuse of discretion” and “clear abuse of discretion” defendants would be encouraged to file motions for new trials the same for the purpose of review
- addressing deliberate choice of omitting her testimony at trial. If the a Rule 60(b
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment reached. However, I think it important to write separately to emphasize my view that this holding is limited to the unique set of facts present here.
I wish to also emphasize the following. I agree that the plaintiff has been through *277 the “rigamarole” in the instant case, but to not allow the district judge to correct his error could result in a pure windfall to plaintiff without a showing of a detrimental reliance on her part. Further, I believe as a policy matter that a judge should have discretion to correct his or her own legal error. Finally, the rationale of the opinion would, I fear, be tantamount to justifying a sixty-day time limitation on Rule 60(b) motions when the statute clearly states one year.