Rhonda Hines v. Arthur Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• a final judgment is not subject to modification merely because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the controlling precedent
• “While judgments are subject to being opened and retroactively modified in certain extraordinary situations where justice demands, a change in precedent is not one of those extraordinary circumstances.”
• “[T]he only possible basis for preclusion would have been by application of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel, a doctrine the Supreme Court has held inapplicable in suits against the government.”
• “[T]he only possible basis for preclusion would have been by application of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel, a doctrine the Supreme Court has held inapplicable in suits against the government.”
• “[T]he only possible basis for preclusion would have been by application of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel, a doctrine the Supreme Court has held inapplicable in suits against the government.”
• “[T]he only possible basis for preclusion would have been by application of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel, a doctrine the Supreme Court has held inapplicable in suits against the government.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).