Walter L. Peacock v. The Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “it is quite clear that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot do service for an appeal” (citing Inryco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Engineering Co., Inc., 708 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1983))
• stating “Rule 60(b)(2) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], then, is analogous to Rule 59(b), and the same criteria apply in evaluating ‘new evidence’ offered under the two rules.”
• “Under Rule 59, the evidence also must have been in existence at the time of trial ….”
• evidence not in existence at the time of judgment cannot constitute newly discovered evidence under Rule 59
• “[mjate-rial not in existence until after trial falls within 60(b)(2) only if it pertains to facts in existence at time of trial”; same requirements under Rules 59 and 60(b)(2)
• 60(b)(1) motion filed within the time for appeal, calling the trial court's attention to an intervening controlling appellate decision, is a proper means to allow the trial court to correct a decision that would otherwise be corrected by a timely appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).