Ninth Circuit· 6/25/2009

Phelps v. Alameida

Citations

569 F.3d 1120
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13685
2009 WL 1796765

How courts have described this case

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

holding that motions for reconsideration brought under Rule 60(b) may be predicated on changes in the law underlying an earlier judgment
recognizing that “Tomlin’s per se approach has been overruled by intervening Supreme Court precedent”
holding previous per se rule for rejecting Rule 60(b)(6) motions based on intervening change in law was irreconcilable with Supreme Court’s “case-by- case approach”
reasoning that such promptness “respects the strong public interest in timeliness and finality” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
instructing that “the proper course when analyzing a Rule 60(b)(6) motion predicated on an intervening change in the law is to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the specific motion before the court”
inquiring whether a “change in the law … upset or overturn[ed] a settled legal principle” entrenched in published circuit precedent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bright, Myron, Reinhardt, Stephen, Tashima, Wallace

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named Phelps v. Alameida

2 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.