Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., 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 it would be an abuse of discretion for district court to grant 60(b) relief where party's untimeliness was solely because of their attorney's carelessness or misapprehension of the applicable rules of court
• holding that it would be an abuse of discretion for district court to grant 60(b) relief where party's untimeliness was solely because of their attorney's carelessness or misapprehension of the applicable rules of court
• finding that “[a] party has a duty of diligence to inquire about the status of a case”
• noting that “[d]enial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a dismissal under clause (1) is not an abuse of discretion when the proffered justification for relief is the ‘inadvertent mistake.’ ... Rule 60(b
• suggesting that a district court “would abuse its discretion if it were to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(1)” when the party failed to discharge its “duty of diligence to inquire about the status of a case”
• explaining that “[g]ross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law are insufficient bases for 60(b)(1) relief . . . . In fact, a court would abuse its discretion if it were to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).