Juelfs v. Gough

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that party was not entitled to raise grounds for Rule 60(b) relief for the first time on appeal
• noting that in order to obtain Rule 60(b)(6) relief, \a motion [must] be made by one of the parties\
• noting that an opposition in which a party claimed sole custody of a pet was in the pet's best interest should be \construe[d] ... as such a request\ under Rule 60(b)(6) because \[sluch language is enough to warrant the trial court's action'\
• approving modification of a property settlement agreement providing for shared possession of a dog because the arrangement assumed cooperation between the parties that did not exist
• affirming superior court's grant of Rule 60(b) relief where underlying assumption of dissolution decree was that couple would be able to cooperate in sharing custody of the dog, but proved unable to do so
• construing motion regarding custody of former couple’s dog as a Rule 60(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).