Agustina Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that moving party on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion must demonstrate fraud by clear and convincing evidence and of post-judgment relief does not \resurrect\ expired right of appeal from underlying judgment
• holding surprise expert medical testimony required a new trial because the issue was new and prejudiced defendant's case
• granting new trial where district court permitted testimony of undisclosed expert
• “[o]ur inquiry into the character of the motion is a functional one: ‘nomenclature should not be exalted over substance’” (citations omitted)
• “a timely filed motion [for reconsideration] could be treated as filed under Rule 59 even though it was ... filed pursuant to Rule 60(b).”
• “It would appear in general that the grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) may also be grounds for a new trial under Rule 59, if the motion is timely made. ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).