Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Page v. Schweiker

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 14, 1986No. 85-5034Published

1ConcurrenceGarth, Circuit Judge

I concur with Judge Higginbotham’s conclusion that the district court properly de*156nied the Secretary’s motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b),1 and that we must affirm. I agree with Judge Higginbotham that the Secretary is not entitled to relief from the district court’s remedial order of July 2, 1984 under Rule 60(b)(1), which provides for relief on grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

However, I disagree with Judge Higginbotham’s treatment of the issue of Page’s standing. I believe, as does Judge Hunter in dissent, that we must reach and resolve the…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Stoll v. GottliebSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API