Eric Norris v. Marilyn Brooks

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “a change in the law doesn’t even begin to support a Rule 60(b) motion unless the change is actually relevant to the movant’s position”
• Rule 60(b)(6) relief appropriate “only in extraordinary circumstances where, without such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur”
• “Martinez made very clear that its exception to the general rule of Coleman applies only to attorney error causing procedural default during initial-review collateral proceedings, not collateral appeals.”
• ob- serving that a change in decisional law that is “relevant to the movant’s position” can be sufficient in the presence of other Cox factors to “support a Rule 60(b) motion”
• “Relief is appropriate under this catch-all provision only in ‘extraordinary circumstances where, without such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur.’ Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir.1993).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).