Provident Savings Bank v. Nick Popovich

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion under Rule 60(b)(6)
• concluding that plaintiff’s pro se status did not “rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance entitling him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)”
• affirming denial of Rule 60(b)(3) relief sought based on position that opponent had argued successfully before district court
• “Failing to raise all available theories below… does not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).”
• rejecting pro se Case: 19-1850 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 04/12/2021 GHOMESHI v. STRONGVOLT, INC. 11 litigant’s argument for reversal under Rule 60(b)(3) be- cause he failed to show prejudice from any purported mis- representations
• “In a rule already limited in application to extraordinary circumstances, proper resort to this ‘catch all’ provision is even more highly circumscribed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).