Reese v. Louisville Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although Rule 60(b)(5) permits the revision of an ongoing decree, it does not provide an avenue for upsetting the disposition of a claim for a money judgment merely because the law on which the judgment was founded has changed
• denying relief from judgment filed 85 days after the district court entered judgment but no appeal was taken, and noting that Rule 60(b) “cannot be used to obtain a belated appeal....”
• recognizing “[l]egitimate interests in finality”
• Plaintiff may not employ Rule 60(b)(5) to obtain relief from dismissal of claim seeking money damages, since dismissal not does apply prospectively
• ignorance of the Supreme Court of the United States’ docket is “not ‘excusable’ — it is nothing but negligence, which does not justify untimely action”
• “Negligent handling of a case, by itself, will not excuse untimely behavior or satisfy the showing required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).