Van Skiver v. U.S.
952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,828 timesHolding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 60(b) motion that basically revisited issues already addressed and rejected
Ackermann v. United States
340 U.S. 193 (1950) Cited 1,586 timesHolding that petitioners were not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) when they made a "free, calculated, deliberate choic[e]" not to appeal
Klapprott v. United States
336 U.S. 942 (1949) Cited 1,269 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding a party may not seek relief under the Rule 60(b) catchall provision if the conduct, in fact, falls under Rule 60(b)
Hess v. Cockrell
281 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 300 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a direct appeal
Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
987 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 87 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding that denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is "particularly appropriate" when "asserted on virtually identical grounds" as arguments previously rejected by the district court and raised beyond the time for direct appeal
Frew v. Hawkins
401 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Tex. 2005) Cited 16 timesNoting the "radical nature of a court's dissolving a consent decree in its entirety"
Friedman v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Company
320 F.2d 244 (3d Cir. 1963) Cited 13 timesHolding that a delay of thirteen months was unreasonable
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,439 times 66 Legal AnalysesAllowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"