# Osborn v. Roche

> Supreme Court of Alabama · September 14, 2001 · 813 So. 2d 811

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935849

## Case

- **Full name:** John Jay Osborn, M.D., and Seth I. Izenberg, M.D. v. Bobbie Jean Roche.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 14, 2001
- **Citations:** 813 So. 2d 811; 2001 WL 1074313
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnstone
- **Judges:** Harwood, Johnstone, Rationale
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9935849

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “‘relief [under Rule 60(b)] should not be granted to a party who has failed to do everything reasonably within *956 his power to achieve a favorable result before the judgment becomes final; otherwise, a motion for such relief from a final judgment would likely …

## Opinion text

I concur with the main opinion in its analysis of why subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) of Rule 60(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., do not authorize relief for this plaintiff. I think the correct analysis for subsection (5) would be the same as the analysis for subsection (6). I do not think Patterson v. Hays , 623 So.2d 1142 (Ala. 1993), governs the applicability of subsection (5) in the case now before us, because the case before us is distinguishable from Patterson . The reason the new rule in King v. National Spa Pool Inst., Inc ., 607 So.2d 1241 (Ala. 1992), did not serve as a ground for reinstating the Pattersons' dismissed claims in Patterson v. Hays was that the new rule in King was expressly prospective only. The new rule in Ex parte Cranman , 792 So.2d 392
(Ala. 2000), and Ex parte Rizk , 791 So.2d 911 (Ala. 2000), cited by the plaintiff now before us, is not prospective only, but is retrospective as well. Had the plaintiff now before us done all she reasonably could to keep her claims alive until Cranman and Rizk became final judgments of this Court, that their retroactive operation would have served as ground for vacating, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), the summary judgment entered against her.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935849. Public record. Not legal advice.