Westminster Management v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that interest in the finality of the judgment “which was more than four years old at the time of that ruling” outweighed other interests
• holding that “a district court does not have jurisdiction to alter an appellate ruling where the appellate court has already considered and rejected the basis for the movant’s Rule 60(b) motion”
• finding that in diversity cases, the federal courts are “bound to follow state law on any matter of substantive law”
• finding that “the district court properly determined that the basis for [the plaintiff’s] Rule 60 (b
• noting that the law of the case doctrine “applies to issues that have been decided either expressly or by necessary implication” (quoting Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Social Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 788 (2d Cir. 1983)
• reversing grant of relief from judgment by district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).