Legal Opinion
United States v. Buck
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided March 8, 2002No. 01-7015PublishedCited by 110 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
More than four years after entry of a quiet title judgment in favor of the United States, Defendant Ripley Berryhill (Berry-hill), joined by 26 others (the Non-party Movants), sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). They contended that the judgment should be set aside (1) under Rule 60(b)(6) because it was obtained by fraud upon the court and (2) under Rule 60(b)(4) because it is void. The district court denied the motion. Ber-ryhill and fellow defendant Daniel Buck appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We affirm, holding: (1) Appellants’…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. BeggerlySupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Martha Ann Brundage Rozier v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by110 opinions
- Johnson v. SpencerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
- Nelson v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019
- Effjohn International Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Cobell, Elouise v. Norton, GaleCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
- Thomas v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
105 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.