Legal Opinion
Roseberry v. United States
District Court, D. New Hampshire
Decided May 10, 1990No. Civ. 88-345-DPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DEVINE, Chief Judge.
This Order addresses plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a January 1989 judgment entered after this Court ruled that “plaintiffs are unable to establish the causal breach of any legal duty owed them by defendant pursuant to the [Federal Tort Claims Act].” Jan. 12, 1989, Order at 11. 1 Authority for this motion is found in Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (2) newly…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Thompson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. KochNew York Supreme Court · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hurt v. Philadelphia Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Johnson v. City of DetroitDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2004
- Nematollahi v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Ayres v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Hurt v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.