Legal Opinion
Schwartz v. United States
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided March 27, 1990No. Civ. No. Y-81-350; Crim. No. Y-75-0822PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOSEPH H. YOUNG, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff, Irving T. Schwartz, has filed an Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment and for Return of Forfeited Property. By order dated January 25, 1990 the Court denied Plaintiff’s original motion for post-judgment relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 129 F.R.D. 117.
Although captioned as an “Amended Motion”, Plaintiff’s motion is properly considered as a “Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).1 Thus construed, the motion is sub-*236ject to the Rule’s ten (10) day limitations period. Counting…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. Marvin Mandel, W. Dale Hess, Harry W. Rodgers, Iii, William A. Rodgers, Irvin Kovens, and Ernest N. CoryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. RogersDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1985
- United States v. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and City and County of Denver, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- United States v. MandelDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sorbo v. United Parcel ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- Irving T. Schwartz v. United States of America, (Three Cases). United States of America v. Marvin Mandel, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
- Holland v. Virginia Lee Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1999
- Schwartz v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1990