Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gomez v. Chody

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided January 31, 1989No. Nos. 87-1935, 87-3131Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCudahy, Circuit Judge

I agree with the persuasive majority opinion in all respects except its affirmance of the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(2) motion in No. 87-3131. This is a close question and I am very much aware that the discretion of the trial judge is (and ought to be) particularly broad with respect to motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. But here the new evidence of boasting by building management personnel of kicking out the “spies” and “wetbacks” was dynamite. As Judge Plunkett appears to concede, had it been available in time, it would easily have…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
  2. Nancy Deitchman, Paula Renfroe, and Dr. Arthur L. Herbst, Witness-Appellee v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  3. Kenneth P. Prill v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
  4. Roy Ferrell v. Trailmobile, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
  5. United States v. Frank Walus, A/K/A Franciszek WalusCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980

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