Skip to main content
Tenth Circuit· 10/17/2005

Quigley v. Rosenthal

Citations

  • 427 F.3d 1232
  • 63 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 289
  • 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22327
  • 2005 WL 2644835

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 amended final judgment qualified because an appeal could 12 be taken from it
  • concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the proffered reasons did not amount to excusable neglect
  • holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting an untimely motion for attorneys’ fees when the movant did not show excusable neglect
  • explaining that where there is a new judg- ment following reversal, “the entry of such a judgment trig- gers the running (for a second time) of the fourteen-day time period set forth in Rule 54(d)(2)(B)”
  • applying the Torres standard to a claim of excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)
  • affirming denial of out-of-time motion where movant failed to allege facts necessary to support finding of “excusable neglect”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Briscoe, Hartz, Herrera

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.