# Dorothy Steinhoff v. Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 17, 1983 · 698 F.2d 270

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470197

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorothy STEINHOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 17, 1983
- **Citations:** 698 F.2d 270; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1147; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31330
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Edwards, Jones, Nichols
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9470197

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470197. Public record. Not legal advice.