Harvest v. Castro

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that 64-day delay was “substantial” and cut against granting Rule 60(b)(1) relief
• stating that Rule 60(b) motions for relief from judgment are reviewed for abuse of discretion
• stating that Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that an order granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus had prospective effect for purposes of Rule 60(b)(5
• noting that “[n]omenclature is not important” as “[t]he label or description that a 25 party puts on its motion does not control whether the party should be granted or denied 26 relief”
• treating an “Application to Amend Order Nunc Pro Tunc” as a Rule 15 60(b) motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).