Jerry L. Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that Rule 68 judgment should be vacated because plaintiff “did 4 not possess sufficient understanding to have ever validly accepted the offer.”
• “Neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).”
• “Neither 28 ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for 1 relief under Rule 60(b)(1).”
• “Generally, a cross-appeal is required to support modification of the judgment, but . . . arguments that support the 28 judgment as entered can be made without a cross-appeal.”
• “Neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” (quoting Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601, 607 (7th Cir. 1986))
• carelessness not a ground for 25 relief under Rule 60(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).