JOHN W. KNOX AND EVERETT B. BEST, APPELLEES,
v.
DAVID B. LICHTENSTEIN, SR., WILLIAM A. GERARD, LYLE S. WOODCOCK, SIDNEY N. HELD, DAVID B. LICHTENSTEIN, JR., OSCAR H. LOVE, CARL A. ALGREN. APPEAL OF AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK IN ST. LOUIS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court clarifies that while the district court's denial of the trustees' Rule 60(b)(6) motion was technically moot, the district court's explanation of its prior dismissal served the same clarifying purpose. The appellate court's prior affirmation was not based on speculation.
American National Bank petitioned for rehearing, arguing the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling on an incorrect basis (Fed.R.Civ.P. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The petition for rehearing is denied. However, we take this opportunity to clarify the previously filed opinion in this case, 8 Cir., 654 F. 2d 19.
In its petition for rehearing American National Bank argues that this court mistakenly affirmed the district court’s ruling on the basis of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6).
American National Bank argues that the district court refused to enjoin the state court action because, as the memorandum attached to the district court’s order explained, the prior dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) was without prej udice. By explaining that its prior dismissal of the federal securities claims against the bank had been without prejudice, the district court rendered moot the trustees’ pending motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) for clarification of its prior dismissal. American National Bank argues that because the district court denied the trustees’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion as moot, this court improperly affirmed the district court on the basis of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6).
American National Bank’s argument is technically correct.
The district court denied the trustees’ pending Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
However, the district court denied the trustees’ motion only because its denial of the bank’s request for injunctive relief had rendered it moot.
The district court had denied the bank’s request for injunctive relief and explained in the memorandum attached to its order that its prior dismissal had been without prejudice. Although the district court did not act expressly in response to the trustees’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion for clarification of its prior dismissal, Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) authorizes the district court to make such a clarification.
Thus, by clarifying its prior dismissal in its order denying injunctive relief, the district court foreclosed the need to rule directly on the trustees’ pending Rule 60(b)(6). Under the circumstances we cannot agree that in the previously filed opinion the court “speculated” in presuming how the district court would rule on the trustees’ motion.
Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knox v. Lichtenstein, 654 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1981)
-
United States v. Fleet Wallace Maull, 855 F.2d 514 (8th Cir. 1988)
Authorities Cited
- Knox v. Lichtenstein, 654 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1981)