ERRINGTON

v.

MISSOURI EX REL. COLLET, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

Citator

Cited By

• Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 291 F.2d 542 (7th Cir. 1961)
  …wer to enforce its rules, orders or procedures and to impose appropriate sanctions for failure to comply. The authorities are all to the contrary. In Darlington v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, 7 Cir., 1959, 261 F. 2d 903, 905, certiorari denied, 359 U.S. 992, 79 S.Ct. 1121, 3 L.Ed.2d 980, where we upheld the dismissal of a cause under another local rule (for want of prosecution), we said that “ * * * it is within the court’s inherent power to so dismiss an action without authority of statute or rule,” c…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Margoles v. Alida Johns & The Journal Corp., 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981)
  …1 (D.Md.), affd. 334 F. 2d 464 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 379 U.S. 869, 85 S.Ct. 141, 13 L.Ed.2d 71 (1964), or where a judge previously worked as a lawyer for a party. Darlington v. Studebaker-Packard Corp., 261 F. 2d 903, 906 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 359 U.S. 992, 79 S.Ct. 1121, 3 L.Ed.2d 980 (1959). Even if the issue here were merely a question of error on appeal, I have no difficulty concluding that Judge Warren was not required to disqualify himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455 as it existed prior to December 4…
• CTS Corp. v. Piher Int'l Corp. & Piher Sociedad Anonima, 727 F.2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
  …rneys’ fees since Piher’s motion was not frivolous. OPINION The standard of review of a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is abuse of discretion. See Darlington v. Studebaker-Packard Corp., 261 F. 2d 903, 905 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 992, 79 S.Ct. 1121, 3 L.Ed.2d 980 (1959); see generally Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 73 F.R.D. 16 (D.Del.1976). Unless exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are shown, a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is generally not granted. Ac…