Wayne E. Ritter v. Fred Smith, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections and J.D. White, Warden, Holman Unit

How courts have described this case

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

• holding Rule 60(b)(6) relief appropriate where “erroneous final judgment of this court had not been executed”
• noting there is a “greater interest in finality” once a judgment is executed given that parties rely on those outcomes
• “[S]omething more than a ‘mere’ change in the law is necessary to provide the grounds for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.”
• affirming the district court’s Rule 60(b) reconsideration in a habeas case of judgment made pursuant to appellate court’s mandate in light of subsequent change in controlling law
• relief allowed when \there has been a clear-cut change in the law\
• “Though the above-mentioned cases plainly allow Rule 60(b)(6) relief where there has been a clear-cut change in the law, it is also clear that a change in the law will not always provide the truly extraordinary circumstances necessary to reopen a case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).