Legal Opinion

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided March 11, 1983No. 82-2015PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TATE, Circuit Judge:

Twelve weeks after summary judgment was entered dismissing their claims, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the final judgment because, allegedly, (a) there was a serious mistake of law that did not come to their counsel’s attention until more than thirty days after the final judgment and (b) there was excusable neglect because the legal associate in charge of the litigation for the plaintiffs had left the firm and remaining counsel, embroiled in antitrust litigation in Pennsylvania, did not discover the mistake until some two months after the final judgment.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. Lauritzen v. LarsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  4. Seven Elves, Incorporated v. Jack S. Eskenazi, Esko Industries, Inc., Gary Liebman and Jack RibackCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  5. Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. RhoditisSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Samuel Nemaizer, General Manager of the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers' Union I.L.G.W.U. v. Jack Baker, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
  2. Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Marvin Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  4. Rayford v. Pryor, Jr. v. U.S. Postal ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
  5. Jefferson v. Pneumo Services Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985

51 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