Davidson v. McClellan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a mere change in decisional law will not constitute the extraordinary circumstances necessary to vacate a final judgment”
• Colorado Supreme Court concludes that even a change in decisional law by the United States Supreme Court was not sufficient to reopen a final judgment
• Colorado Supreme Court concludes that even a change in decisional law by the United States Supreme Court was not sufficient to reopen a final judgment
• “Changes in decisional law, even by the Supreme Court and even involving constitutionality, do not necessarily amount to the extraordinary circumstances required for relief pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5).”
• residuary provision “include[s] only extreme situations and extraordinary circumstances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).