Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

191 F.2d 652

Docket No. 10849.

Gilmore v. Hinman

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 25, 1951.

Decided June 21, 1951.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-06-21

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order • * * * * “(b) Mistake; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidencet Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall he made within a reasonable time, * * (Italics ours.)”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Morse-Starrett Products Co. v. Steccone, In Re the Estate of Nuese

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Hodgson v. Applegate (1959), Chastain v. Kelley (1975)

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

1101951196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. T. Emmett McKenzie, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Mr.- Ralph A. Cusick, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

¶3Before PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges, and LEDERLE, District Judge, sitting by designation.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellees brought a civil action to set aside a conveyance of real estate. Appellant filed a cross-complaint for services rendered and for sums expended upon the property. After trial before the court without a jury, the judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law and referred the matter to the Auditor of the court for a report stating the account between the parties. The Auditor held hearings and made a report, to which all parties excepted. The court heard the exceptions, modified the report, and then ratified and confirmed it as modified. Final judgment was entered May 23, 1949. An appeal was noted but not perfected, and so was dismissed.

¶6On October 11, 1950, appellant filed in the District Court a motion to revoke the reference to the Auditor and set aside the judgment. The motion was denied, and appellant appealed on the ground that the trial court lacked authority to make the reference to the Auditor.

¶7We think the action of the trial court in making the reference was proper, *653and, moreover, the motion to vacate the judgment was filed too late. Sixteen months is not “a reasonable time” under these circumstances. Rule 60(b), Fed.R. Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A. None of the reasons specified in the Rule are present. No other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment appears, and a motion of this sort cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.

¶8The order of the District Court is affirmed.

/191/f2d/652 · .json · Public domain