# Ex Parte Dowling

> Supreme Court of Alabama · October 4, 1985 · 477 So. 2d 400

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935188

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Joseph Dowling. (In Re Joseph Dowling v. James Celso Purvis).
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** October 4, 1985
- **Citations:** 477 So. 2d 400
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Torbert
- **Judges:** Maddox, Torbert
- **Cited by:** 114 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/9935188

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, when facts alleged in a second postjudgment motion were known to the movant when he filed his original postjudgment motion, his second post-judgment motion had to be construed as a motion to reconsider the denial of his first postjudgment motion rather than as a …
- stating that “[wjhere the facts alleged in the motion to reconsider were known by the moving party at the time of his original motion, Rule 60(b) does not authorize a motion to reconsider”
- noting that, in the usual case, a trial court has no jurisdiction to "reconsider" the denial of a postjudgment motion

## Opinion text

I am in complete agreement with the majority opinion. My only purpose in writing specially is to briefly summarize and emphasize the holding of the Court.
If a party has his post-judgment motion denied, the review of that denial is by appeal. If a party has his post-judgment motion granted and a new judgment is entered, then the aggrieved party has the opportunity to file appropriate post-judgment motions. For example, see, A.R.Civ.P. 50 (c)(2).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935188. Public record. Not legal advice.