United States v. Melvin P. Deutsch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that substantive motions to alter or amend a judgment served after the deadline set in Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) must be evaluated under Rule 60(b)
• explaining that Rule 60(b) motions “must be shaped to the specific grounds for modification or reversal found in 60(b) — they cannot be general pleas for relief”
• noting that this court has adopted the bright-line rule that all substantive motions filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment be treated under Rule 59
• explaining that Rule 60(b) motions \must be shaped to the specific grounds for modification or reversal found in 60(b)--they cannot be general pleas for relief\
• holding untimely a petitioner’s motion to return seized property
• adopting the bright-line rule that motions to alter or amend a judgment “served within [28] days of the rendition of judgment” are evaluated under Rule 59(e) (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).