Parks v. Collins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that order pursuant to Rule 60(b) motion that vacates or sets aside a prior judgment and leaves the case pending further determination is interlocutory and non- appealable
• holding that the magistrate judge lacked authority to decide a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment entered by a district judge absent consent of the parties and a referral by the district court
• holding that the magistrate judge lacked authority to decide a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment entered by a district judge absent consent of the parties and a referral by the district court
• recognizing that such an order “merely vacates the judgment and leaves the case pending for further 4 The dissent attempts to distinguish Kerwit, but the factual and legal differences are irrelevant to the finality or non-finality of an order denying a Rule 60(b
• “Should the district court conclude no such authority existed, it would then be proper for it to vacate the magistrate’s order and proceed to decide the motions anew.”
• “When an order granting a Rule 60(b) motion[] merely vacates the judgment and leaves the case pending for further determination, the order is akin to an order granting a new trial and is interlocutory and nonappealable.” (internal quotation marks and omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).