Lieving v. Hadley

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “if rules of law or accepted ways of doing things are to be changed, then this Court will do so in a signed opinion, not a per curiam opinion”
• insurer's failure to point out liquor liability exclusion to insured rendered exclusion unenforceable
• “A motion which would otherwise qualify as a Rule 59(e) motion that is not filed and served within ten days of the entry of judgment is a Rule 60(b) motion regardless of how styled . . . .”
• “A motion to amend or alter judgment, even though it is incorrectly denominated as a motion to ‘reconsider’, ‘vacate’, ‘set aside’, or ‘reargue’ is a Rule 59(e) motion if filed and served within ten days of entry of judgment.”
• “A motion which would otherwise qualify as a Rule 59(e) motion that is not filed and served within ten days of the entry of judgment is a Rule 60(b) motion regardless of how styled and does not toll the four month appeal period for appeal to this court.” (emphasis added)
• \A motion which would otherwise qualify as a Rule 59(e) motion that is not filed and served within ten days of the entry of judgment is a Rule 60(b) motion regardless of how styled and does not toll the four month appeal period for appeal to this court. \ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).