Tyler v. Keeney
Idaho Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
PERRY, Judge.
We are asked in this appeal to review the district court’s order denying Sheryl Tyler relief on his I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Tyler was not entitled to Rule 60(b) relief because Tyler acted unreasonably in failing to communicate with this counsel to monitor the case. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s order denying relief under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) and (3). We hold as harmless the district court’s failure to rule on Rule 60(b)(6) grounds for relief.
I
FACTS
In 1992, Tyler brought an action against Frank Keeney asserting breach of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Martha Ann Brundage Rozier v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Avondale on Hayden, Inc. v. HallIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983
- Bott v. Idaho State Building AuthorityIdaho Supreme Court · 1992
- Shelton v. Diamond International Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1985
- Catledge v. Transport Tire Co., Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bagley v. ThomasonIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
- Campbell v. KildewIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
- Cuevas v. BarrazaIdaho Court of Appeals · 2008
- LeaseFirst v. BurnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1998
- Freeman & Co. v. BoltIdaho Court of Appeals · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.