Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego

How courts have described this case

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

• holding summary judgment order upholding constitutionality of law against plaintiffs’ challenge did not have prospective application under Rule 60(b)(5)
• holding summary judgment order upholding constitutionality of law 10 against plaintiffs’ challenge did not have prospective application under Rule 11 60(b)(5)
• declaration presenting new information was not newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2) because “it discusse[d] evidence that was not in existence at the time of the judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).