§Why CasetextPricing

In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation

MOTION to Alter Judgment as to 231 Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Settlement,,,,,,,,,

10 Cited authorities

  1. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail

    502 U.S. 367 (1992)   Cited 1,165 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance"

  2. United States v. United Shoe Corp.

    391 U.S. 244 (1968)   Cited 208 times
    Holding that a court can modify a consent decree "upon an appropriate showing" of "the specific facts and circumstances" in the particular case

  3. In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products

    246 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that consideration of Pioneer factors warranted lengthy enlargement

  4. League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Boerne

    659 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that intervenor had a “legally protectable interest” where he sought to protect “his right to vote in elections to choose all five city council members.”

  5. Evans v. Williams

    206 F.3d 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 31 times
    In Evans, the District of Columbia appealed from an order of the District Court imposing contempt fines of $5,096,340 for its failure to comply with a consent decree addressing a panoply of constitutional violations resulting from poor conditions at a mental health facility.

  6. Pigford v. Johanns

    416 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 24 times

    Nos. 04-5171, 04-5172. Argued March 14, 2005. Decided July 15, 2005. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 97CV01978) (No. 98CV01693). Alexander J. Pires, Jr. argued the cause for the appellants. Howard S. Scher, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellee. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Kenneth L. Wainstein, United States Attorney, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, United

  7. Lashawn A. Ex. Rel. Moore v. Fenty

    701 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2010)   Cited 11 times

    Civil. No. 89-1754 (TFH). April 5, 2010. Arthur B. Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Erik S. Pitchal, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Michael Sara Bartosz, Childrens Rights, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Natalie Frazier Allen, Richard S. Love, Office of Corporation Counsel Office of the Solicitor General, Robert C. Utiger, DC Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge. Pending before the Court are the plaintiffs'

  8. In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig.

    820 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    Misc. No. 08–0511 (PLF). 2011-10-27 In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION.This document relates to All Cases. Dedrick Brittenum, Jr., Memphis, TN, Precious T. Martin, Sr., Precious Martin, Sr. & Associates, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation. David Joseph Frantz, Conlon, Frantz & Phelan, LLP, Washington, DC, Scott William Weinstein, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Fort Myers, FL, for Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation and All Plaintiffs. PAUL L. FRIEDMAN Dedrick Brittenum

  9. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 54,664 times   149 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  10. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 50,129 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."