Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 192 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Gonzalez v. Crosby.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gonzalez v. Crosby Anchor | green | “rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” | 77 |
| 2 | Gonzalez v. Crosby | green | “such circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context.” | 42 |
| 3 | Gonzalez v. Crosby | green | “attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” | 35 |
| 4 | Hubert L. Michael v. Secretary Pennsylvania Depart | green | “a showing of extraordinary circumstances involves a showing that without relief from the judgment, 'an "extreme” | 17 |
| 5 | United States v. Joseph Fiorelli | green | “a device to relitigate the original issue decided by the district court, and it is used to allege legal error.” | 9 |
| 6 | Booker v. Singletary | green | “judgment under rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy.” | 6 |
| 7 | United States v. John Doe | green | “extraordinary circumstances where, without such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.