13 Cited authorities

Gonzalez v. Crosby
545 U.S. 524 (2005) Cited 6,104 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a district court's application of the statute of limitations was not successive
Saldano v. State
70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) Cited 676 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant's failure to object to evidence in a timely and specific manner during trial forfeits complaints about its admissibility, even if the alleged error concerns a defendant's constitutional rights
Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co.
322 U.S. 238 (1944) Cited 1,054 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for "after-discovered fraud"
Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi
635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 576 times
Holding that "any possible malpractice remedy against their attorney would be inadequate to restore the [moving party] to their prejudgment position"
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky
10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993) Cited 254 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "only actions that actually subvert the judicial process can be the basis for upsetting otherwise settled decrees" on the basis of fraud on the court.
Balentine v. Thaler
626 F.3d 842 (5th Cir. 2010) Cited 98 times
Holding that a Rule 60(b) motion did not raise a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel—and thus was not an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition—where the original § 2254 petition raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
Great Coastal Exp. v. International Broth
675 F.2d 1349 (4th Cir. 1982) Cited 179 times
Holding that petitioner must prove "deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud" the court (quoting Hazel–Atlas Glass, 322 U.S. at 245–46, 64 S.Ct. 997 )
U.S. v. Hurst
426 F. App'x 323 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 3 times
Construing a motion for clarification as a motion for relief under Rule 4
United States v. Gould
301 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 60 times
Reversing district court's denial of motion to vacate stipulation voluntarily entered into by the parties where it appeared to have been premised upon a mistake of fact by one party
Pickford v. Talbott
225 U.S. 651 (1912) Cited 61 times
In Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657, 32 S.Ct. 687, 56 L.Ed. 1240, the Court held that a showing must be made that it would be manifestly unconscionable for the successful adversary to enforce the judgment.
Section 2244 - Finality of determination
28 U.S.C. § 2244 Cited 65,307 times 166 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."
Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Cited 53,572 times 146 Legal Analyses
Granting relief from the operation of a judgment
Section 37.071 - Procedure In Capital Case
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071 Cited 1,041 times 7 Legal Analyses
Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence

Buck v. Stephens

13 Cited authorities

Holding that a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a district court's application of the statute of limitations was not successive

Holding that the defendant's failure to object to evidence in a timely and specific manner during trial forfeits complaints about its admissibility, even if the alleged error concerns a defendant's constitutional rights

Holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for "after-discovered fraud"

Holding that "any possible malpractice remedy against their attorney would be inadequate to restore the [moving party] to their prejudgment position"

Holding that "only actions that actually subvert the judicial process can be the basis for upsetting otherwise settled decrees" on the basis of fraud on the court.

Holding that a Rule 60(b) motion did not raise a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel—and thus was not an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition—where the original § 2254 petition raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

Holding that petitioner must prove "deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud" the court (quoting Hazel–Atlas Glass, 322 U.S. at 245–46, 64 S.Ct. 997 )

Construing a motion for clarification as a motion for relief under Rule 4

Reversing district court's denial of motion to vacate stipulation voluntarily entered into by the parties where it appeared to have been premised upon a mistake of fact by one party

In Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 657, 32 S.Ct. 687, 56 L.Ed. 1240, the Court held that a showing must be made that it would be manifestly unconscionable for the successful adversary to enforce the judgment.

Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence