# Landau & Cleary, Ltd. v. Hribar Trucking, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation, and Leo Hribar

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · January 31, 1989 · 867 F.2d 996

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478708

## Case

- **Full name:** LANDAU & CLEARY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HRIBAR TRUCKING, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, and Leo Hribar, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** January 31, 1989
- **Citations:** 867 F.2d 996; 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1438; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2209; 1989 WL 14957
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ripple
- **Judges:** Easterbrook, Ripple, Kanne
- **Cited by:** 34 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/9478708

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that Rule 60 “forbids motions to obtain relief from a judgment other than those made under the Federal Rules” and that aside from Rule 59(e), which is not presently applicable, the only Rule providing for relief from a final judgment is Rule 60(b)
- affirming district court’s denial where motion should have been brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) but was instead labeled a “motion for recoupment”

## Opinion text

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the result. In my view, the obligation to consider the substance of the motion, not the label the moving party places upon it, required the district court to consider the “motion for recoupment” a Rule 60(b) motion. However, on this record, I cannot say that the district court abused his discretion in declining to grant relief. Accordingly, I join the judgment of the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478708. Public record. Not legal advice.