Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

National Ecological Foundation v. Alexander

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided August 3, 2007No. 06-5700Published

1Concurring in the judgmentSutton, Circuit Judge

I respectfully see this case differently. Unlike the majority, I find it unnecessary to decide whether Bowles v. Russell, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007), Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005), and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004), compel us to determine that Rule 59(e) is a claim-processing rule. I instead believe we should adhere to the straightforward practice we have long employed when faced with an untimely Rule 59(e) motion — which is to construe the motion as a timely-filed Rule 60(b) motion.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bowles v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Eberhart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. Miriam Morrison Peake v. The First National Bank and Trust Company of MarquetteCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983

4 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