Tibbitts v. Wisniewski

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 plaintiff was under the mistaken impression that case law did not require him to respond to the defendant’s request for discovery
• “time limits on a [b][l] or [b][3] motion may not be extended by the expedient of bringing it under [b][6]”
• inexcusable unprofessional conduct by party’s attorney causing adverse judgment against him does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance justifying relief under the “extremely narrow and meagre scope” of rule 60[b][6]
• “Under the mistaken impression that no response to discovery was required until a medical malpractice tribunal had ruled, plaintiffs counsel did not dignify the defendant’s requests for discovery with a reply”
• “Under the mistaken impression that no response to discovery was required until a medical malpractice tribunal had ruled, plaintiffs counsel did not dignify the defendant’s requests for discoveiy with a reply”
• “Under the mistaken impression that no response to discovery was required until a medical malpractice tribunal had ruled, plaintiffs counsel did not dignify the defendant’s requests for discovery with a reply”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).