Arthur Tyler v. Carl Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in Rule 60(b) motions, the “moving party must articulate a reasonable basis for delay”
• holding that the Rule 60(b)(6) motion was untimely because it was filed ten years after district court’s denial of the habeas petition
• holding that the petitioner could have filed a Rule 60(b)(6) “motion pro se, as he had done before, within the period spanning more than ten years”’
• stating that a Rule 60 motion is not intended to permit parties to submit new proof
• noting that Rule 60(b) “does not allow a defeated litigant a second chance to convince the court to rule in his or her favor by presenting new explanations, legal theories, or proof.”
• seeking to raise claims that former counsel had neglected in a years-old habeas application

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).