Skip to main content

Norris v. Salazar

Citations

  • 277 F.R.D. 22
  • 25 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 972
  • 80 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1469
  • 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119893
  • 2011 WL 4926096

How courts have described this case

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

  • citing, e.g., Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383- 84 (1992)
  • denying Rule 60(b)(1) motion for counsel’s neglect and inexplicable failure to respond to 22 The “six categories” of Rule 60(b) relief “are ‘mutually exclusive’ from one another, meaning that an action cannot be brought through the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Beryl A. Howell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Norris v. Salazar

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.