Circuit split · civil procedure
The scope of Rule 60(b)(4) relief for vacating a final, unappealed order as void
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Wendt v. Leonard431 F3D 410
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · December 12, 2005
“The parties’ arguments concerning which courts are correct in the split of authority, however, ignore the unique nature of the extraordinary relief Wendt seeks in his Rule 60(b)(4) motion — vacating a final, unappealed order.” — Split of authority
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
42 U.S.C. § 1988 — Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
“(a) Applicability of statutory and common law The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Discussed · 7th Cir.Citizens for a Better Environment v. Steel Co.230 F.3d 923
“Steel Co., 230 F.3d 923 , 925-28 (7th Cir.2000) (finding that, even if a court lacks power to rule on the substantive claims of the plaintiff, it does not necessarily lack power to award attorney fees, but discussing cases reaching a contrary result); Branson v.” — Wendt v. Leonard, acknowledging the split
- Discussed · 9th Cir.Branson v. Nott62 F.3d 287
“Nott, 62 F.3d 287 , 293 (9th Cir.l995)(“By itself, § 1988 does not provide the district court with jurisdiction to grant an attorney fee award where subject matter jurisdiction to hear the underlying § 1983 claim is lacking.”); Keene Corp.” — Wendt v. Leonard, acknowledging the split
- Discussed · 8th Cir.Keene Corp. v. Cass908 F.2d 293
“Cass, 908 F.2d 293 , 298 (8th Cir.1990)(“[S]ection 1988 does not by its terms confer subject matter jurisdiction upon federal courts, but rather relies upon the provisions of other federal statutes, such as section 1983 read in conjunction with 28 U.S.C.” — Wendt v. Leonard, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- arguable basis for jurisdiction
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.