Legal Opinion
Pigford v. Veneman
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 2, 2003No. CIV.A. 97-1978(PLF), CIV.A. 98-1693(PLF)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
The Court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for relief for four groups of claimants who filed petitions for Monitor review, as well as defendant’s opposition and plaintiffs’ reply. 1 Plaintiffs seek relief for a total of 350 individual claimants whose petitions for Monitor review were deemed untimely by the Facilitator and not forwarded to the Monitor for consideration, based on the Facilitator’s determination that either the petition or an amendment to the petition was untimely filed. 2 Relying on Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County JailSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arnold Schildhaus v. Kenneth W. Moe, as District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned PartyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Bellsouth Corporation, Bell Atlantic CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pigford, Timothy v. Johanns, MichaelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
- Pigford v. VenemanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Pigford v. VenemanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Pigford, Timothy v. Johanns, MichaelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
- Pigford, Timothy v. Johanns, MichaelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005