Dietsch v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the plaintiff “has offered little explanation for the long delay in filing the Rule 60(b) [m]otion”
• ruling that the plaintiffs motion to vacate failed to meet the reasonable time requirement because it did “not raise any fact or applicable rule of law that did not exist or was not apparent” at the time of the court’s initial ruling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Tischio v. Bontex, Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 1998-07-23· cited 88×
• Fadayiro v. United States
  D. New Jersey· 1998-11-12· cited 8×
• United States v. Enigwe
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2002-07-30· cited 6×
• United States v. Hernandez
  D. Delaware· 2001-08-13· cited 3×
• Christian v. All Persons Claiming any Right, Title or Interest in all Properties
  Virgin Islands· 2003-08-14· cited 1×
• Christian v. ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY RIGHT
  Virgin Islands· 2003-08-14
• Gordon v. Monoson
  Virgin Islands· 2006-05-26
• Tarascio v. United States
  D. Connecticut· 2000-12-20

Other cases named Dietsch v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Dietsch v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1996-11-04