Ninth Circuit· 7/9/2008

Harvest v. Castro

Citations

531 F.3d 737
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14461
2008 WL 2669706

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).

Judges: Gibson, Tashima, Berzon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named Harvest v. Castro

3 other CourtListener records share 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.