TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dorothy M. Evans v. Independent Order of Foresters

Dorothy M. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, Defendant-Appellee

Evans v. Indep. Order of Foresters, 141 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 1998)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 6, 1998
Docket
No. 97-15751
Judges
Choy, International, Reinhardt, Restani, Trade
Citations
141 F.3d 93198 Daily Journal DAR 34631998 WL 15458398 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 25041998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6780

Opinion

ORDER Plaintiff appeals the denial of a motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for the defendant solely pursuant to a local rule that provided that failure to respond to a motion constitutes consent. Granting the motion without determining whether the defendant’s moving papers, including “the papers and pleadings on file herein,” showed that no genuine issues of material fact exist was error under Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943 (9th Cir.1993).

See Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir.1995) (following Henry)-, Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488 (9th Cir.1994) (same). The district court’s subsequent denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion because the underlying decision was based on an error of law.

See Yniques v. Cabral, 985 F.2d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that underlying judgment based on error of law is “mistake” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) that requires reversal). We therefore reverse the district’s denial of the motion to set aside the judgment and remand to the district court to determine the merits of the summary judgment motion.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
2000: 12003: 12009: 12013: 12020: 12023: 22025: 32026: 120002026peak 2025 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ford v. TaylorNo. 2:21-cv-01982 (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2023)
  2. Shoppes at Mirador Square LLC v. Wild Oats Markets IncorporatedNo. 2:21-cv-00831 (D. Ariz. Mar. 17, 2023)
  3. Andres M. Martinez v. G.D. Stanford W. Owen M. Atkinson D. Rockholt J. Stovall323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003)
  4. Winters v. COUNTRY HOME PRODUCTS, INC.654 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Mont. 2009)
  5. Mirage Resorts, Inc. v. Stirpe152 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Nev. 2000)
  6. Quincy Robertson v. James Walker543 F. App'x 722 (9th Cir. 2013)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Henry v. Gill Indus., 983 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1993) 620
Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488 (9th Cir. 1994) 133
Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995) 71
Gilbert Yniques Angel Diaz Carl S. Ramos John Balderama Tony L. Hernandez v. Victor G. Cabral Mario G. Obledo, 985 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1993) 44

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list