Richard T. Arnold v. Gael D. Wood, Drema L. Grant, Daniel M. Buescher, the Law Firm of Eckelkamp, Eckelkamp, Wood and Kuenzel, Angela D. Wieda

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that identical 10-day time period for filing post-judgment Rule 59 motion, “may not be extended by the court, nor by agreement of counsel”
• ruling that appellant’s post-judgment motion, filed more than 10-days after the entry of judgment, did not toll the time for filing an appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)
• concluding that the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion was not an abuse of discretion where the motion largely reasserted contentions made in earlier motions
• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 60(b) motion that “largely reasserted contentions made in earlier motions”
• ruling that appellant's post-judgment motion, filed more than 10-days after the entry of judgment, did not toll the time for filing an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)
• stating that the clerk’s docket entries are presumed correct in the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).