Legal Opinion

Nutter v. Wefald

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided October 11, 1995No. 90-1436-SACPublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CROW, District Judge.

The ease comes before the court on the plaintiffs motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants, Dr. Jon Wefald and Kansas State University, have filed a response in opposition. The court will not lay out the facts or procedural background, for both are fully stated in the court’s published opinion of Nutter v. Wefald, 885 F.Supp. 1445 (D.Kan.1995). Suffice it to say, this is not Ms. Nutter’s first request for Rule 60 relief.

Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and limited to certain exceptional…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Raymond J. Van Skiver Alma L. Van Skiver v. United States of America and John DoesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
  2. Seven Elves, Incorporated v. Jack S. Eskenazi, Esko Industries, Inc., Gary Liebman and Jack RibackCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  3. Bankers Mortgage Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
  4. Cessna Finance Corporation v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., Paul BielenbergCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
  5. Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990

7 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