Jermont Cox v. Martin Horn

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that courts should “heed the Supreme Court’s observation—whether descriptive or prescriptive—that Rule 60(b)(6) relief in the habeas context . . . will be rare”
• holding that ninety days between a change in law and a defendant filing a Rule 60(b)(6) motion was reasonable
• recognizing that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is 6 inappropriate “for claims of dubious merit”
• stating that “for 60(b)(6) relief, what must be shown are extraordinary circumstances where, without such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur”
• noting that “intervening changes in the law rarely justify relief from final judgments under 60(b)(6)”
• noting that petitioner was asserting a Rule 60(b)(6) challenge seeking relief from previous Section 2254 dismissal based on procedural default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).