§Why CasetextPricing

HUKMAN v. US AIRWAYS/AMERICAN AIRLINES et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Relief Under 60B Defendant American Airlines, Inc.'s Response in Opposition to "Plaintiff's Motion to Relief from Judgement [sic] Pursuant to Rule 60

6 Cited authorities

  1. Bohus v. Beloff

    950 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 451 times
    Holding that "reliance upon the word of one physician when the patient's common sense would lead to a different conclusion is unreasonable"

  2. Andrews v. United States

    373 U.S. 334 (1963)   Cited 259 times
    Holding that a district court order granting a future resentencing is not immediately appealable because it does not complete the § 2255 proceeding

  3. Bridges v. Colvin

    136 F. Supp. 3d 620 (E.D. Pa. 2015)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the court did not need to reach the merits of the movant's claims because the motion for reconsideration was untimely

  4. Hernandez v. United States

    608 F. App'x 105 (3d Cir. 2015)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's "supplemental evidence" did not constitute "new evidence" because "all that he submitted . . . was information that was available at the summary judgment stage"

  5. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,533 times   146 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  6. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 41,171 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"