James v. Talano, M.D. v. Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the particularity requirement of Rule 7(b)(1) has been interpreted to mean “reasonable specification”
• holding that the district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a Rule 60(b) motion that is not based on one of the specified grounds for relief
• explaining that district court must construe any motion filed more than ten days after entry of judgment as Rule 60(b) motion
• explaining that mistake of law is not appropriate ground for Rule 60(b) relief
• affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion arguing that district court erred in applying state law and federal employment discrimination law
• finding that vague allegations of error violate Rule 7(b)’s particularity requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).