Legal Opinion

Pierce Oil Corp. v. United States

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided November 3, 1949No. Civ. No. 193PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRYAN, District Judge.

The plaintiffs have moved the Court, under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., to be relieved of a final judgment entered in this case on November 20, 1947, D..C., 77 F.Supp. 273. The motion is opposed by the United States as unauthorized and tardy. Omitting impertinent parts, the Rule/ as amended, reads: “(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ór his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. RielyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
  2. Pierce Oil Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1947

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Werner v. CarboCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
  2. Werner v. CarboCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
  3. Vincent J. Menier v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  4. Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  5. Magnavox Co. of Tennessee v. Boles & Hite Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1979

3 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