green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.3 score
“in order to succeed on a motion pursuant to rule 60(b)(2), the movant must present evidence that is truly newly discovered or ... could not have been found by due diligence.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mikol v. Barnhart
in order to succeed on a motion pursuant to rule 60(b)(2), the movant must present evidence that is truly newly discovered or ... could not have been found by due diligence.
cited
Cited "see"
Mario Marquez v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
See Hernandez v. State, 643 S.W.2d 397, 401 (Tex.Crim.App.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Patel v. Lutheran Medical Center, Inc.
See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Burzynski v. Travers, 111 F.R.D. 15, 17 (E.D.N.Y.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Putnam Resources v. Pateman
See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
C.L. Taylor, Cross-Appellee v. Texgas Corporation, Cross-Appellant
See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.) (evidence is not newly discovered where defendant’s attorney admitted that he knew of the evidence prior to the granting of summary judgment and could give no plausible explanation as to why the evidence was not produced earlier), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983). 8 The mere fact that Texgas is a large company does not excuse it from informing its employees of the identity of its legal opponents and from requiring its employees to report any dealings with those opponents to the comp…
discussed
Cited "see"
Broxson v. State
Accord Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882 , 102 S.Ct. 369 , 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Gonzalez v. State
See Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Miller v. State, 503 So.2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Burzynski v. Travers
See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.) (to succeed on a Rule 60(b)(2) motion—standard is the same under Rule 59(a)(2)—movant must present evidence that is “truly newly discovered or ... could not have been found by due diligence”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Jeff Cooper, Inc.
See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Audiovisual Publishers, Inc. v. Cenco, Inc., 580 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1978); International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014 , 98 S.Ct. 730 , 54 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978); see also United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 , 66 S.Ct. 464 , 90 L.Ed. 562 (1946). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Dasher v. State
See Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726, 731 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Kennedy v. State, 140 Fla. 124, 131 , 191 So. 193, 196 (1939); Jackson v. State, 403 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla.1982); Horner v. State, 149 So.2d 863, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
cited
Cited "see"
James v. State
See Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc.
See, e.g., United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mendoza v. City of Rome
In Gemveto Jewelry Co., for example, the court found that a “sustained and intensive but unsuccessful” search for the evidence in question prior to and immediately after trial met the due diligence requirement. 613 F.Supp. at 1059 ; see also United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New York
See, e.g., United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 495 (2d Cir.) (double costs plus $500 attorney’s fee), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 659 F.2d 299 , 306 (2d Cir. 1981) (double costs plus $5,000 attorney’s fee), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018 , 102 S.Ct. 1714 , 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eastway Construction Corp. v. The City Of New York
See, e.g., United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 495 (2d Cir.) (double costs plus $500 attorney's fee), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 659 F.2d 299 , 306 (2d Cir.1981) (double costs plus $5,000 attorney's fee), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018 , 102 S.Ct. 1714 , 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982). 7 The case law under Rule 11 also reflects the exercise of discretion to award only that portion of a defendant's attorney's fee thought reasonable to serve the sanctioning purpose of the Rule.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Francis v. State
See also Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bundy v. State
See, e.g., Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 3129 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983) (where evidence showed the victim was abducted, confined, and sexually abused by the defendant and then lead into a wooded area and killed execution-style by three shots to the back of her head); Bolender v. State, 422 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 2111 , 77 L.Ed.2d 315 (1983) (defendant methodically held the victims at gunpoint and ordered them to strip and then beat and tortured them throughout an evening before killing them).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Talamini, Administratrix of the Estate of Talamini v. Allstate Insurance Co.
See, e.g., Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. United States, 462 U.S. 1144 , 103 S.Ct. 3128 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983) (BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ.); Escofil v. Pennsylvania, 462 U.S. 1117 , 103 S.Ct. 3084 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1346 (1983) (REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ.); In re Rush, 462 U.S. 1117 , 103 S.Ct. 3084 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1346 (1983) (BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ.); Garcia v. United States, 462 U.S. 1116 , 103 S.Ct. 3083 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1346 (1983) (BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ.); Gullo v. McGill, 462 U.S. 1101 , 103 S.Ct. 2445 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1328 (1983) (BURGER, C…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Potamkin Cadillac Corp.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 82-1631.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 20, 1983.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
The Chief Justice, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor would award respondent damages pursuant to this Court’s Rule 49.2.