Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Sixth Circuit· 7/21/1998

Good v. Ohio Edison Co.

Citations

  • 149 F.3d 413
  • 1998 WL 404256

How courts have described this case

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

  • emphasizing that, under Rule 60(b)(2), a movant must exercise “due diligence” in obtaining information that was available
  • noting that a party moving for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) “must demonstrate [] that it exercised due diligence in obtaining the information”
  • holding that a party invoking Rule 56(d) protections must “affirmatively demonstrate . . . how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery and other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact”
  • finding that testimony that mariners generally rely on Coast Guard’s dissemination of information failed to address whether the particular accident involved detrimental reliance on the part of the pleasure boat owner
  • holding that a party invoking Rule 56(d
  • dismissing defendant United States Coast Guard as a party for lack of jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Batchelder, Borman, Moore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

83 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Good v. Ohio Edison Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.