Issac Overbee, Jr. Betty S. Overbee v. Van Waters & Rogers Univar, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding on the basis of “the unique facts of this case” that district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(6
• holding Rule 60(b)(6) relief appropriate where judgment not final
• finding that “extraordinary circumstances” justified relief based on a change in law because the state supreme court “reversing itself within one year is certainly an unusual occurrence,” and the plaintiffs would have prevailed under the new law
• reversing the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion when the judgment was not final
• the “unique facts” of the case compelled reopening the final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) where the district court’s judgment was not final when the plaintiffs filed their motion and the Ohio Supreme Court had reversed itself within one year of settling a question of state law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).