Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham Co., GA

Eleventh Circuit

Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham Co., GA

144 F. App'x 99

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 2005

Docket05-13018; D.C. Docket 03-00038-CV-4

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 F. App'x 99 (Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham Co., GA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham Co., GA, 144 F. App'x 99 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham County, Ga., 112 Fed.Appx. 3 (Table) (11th Cir.2004) (unpublished), reh’g denied, 122 Fed.Appx. 988 (Table) (11th Cir.2004), we affirmed the district court’s decision granting Chatham County summary judgment based on the doctrine of residual common law sovereign immunity. Continental thereafter moved the district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate its judgment. The gist of its argument for vacation is that the district court, and thus this court, erred in granting the County sovereign immunity as they did. In other words, Continental wanted a second bite at the appeal.

The district court denied Continental’s motion, stating:

[Continental’s] arguments were rejected on direct appeal.... They therefore cannot be relitigated under Rule 60(b) absent some extraordinary circumstance, which does not exist here. See Carter v. Dolce, 741 F.2d 758, 760 (5th Cir.1984) (Rule 60(b) “may not be used merely to relitigate settled issues”); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 63 (2d Cir.1986) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from extreme and undue hardship); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir.2005) (the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes courts from revisiting issues decided explicitly or by necessary implication in a prior appeal).

Continental now appeals. We affirm, Given the above precedent it relied upon, we cannot that the district court abused its discretion in Continental’s motion.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham County, Ga., 112 Fed.Appx. 3 (Table) (11th Cir.2004) (unpublished), reh’g denied, 122 Fed.Appx. 988 (Table) (11th Cir.2004), we affirmed the district court’s decision granting Chatham County summary judgment based on the doctrine of residual common law sovereign immunity. Continental thereafter moved the district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate its judgment. The gist of its argument for vacation is that the district court, and thus this court, erred in granting the County sovereign immunity as they did. In other words, Continental wanted a second bite at the appeal.

The district court denied Continental’s motion, stating:

[Continental’s] arguments were rejected on direct appeal.... They therefore cannot be relitigated under Rule 60(b) absent some extraordinary circumstance, which does not exist here. See Carter v. Dolce, 741 F.2d 758, 760 (5th Cir.1984) (Rule 60(b) “may not be used merely to relitigate settled issues”); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 63 (2d Cir.1986) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from extreme and undue hardship); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir.2005) (the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes courts from revisiting issues decided explicitly or by necessary implication in a prior appeal).

Continental now appeals. We affirm, Given the above precedent it relied upon, we cannot that the district court abused its discretion in Continental’s motion.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-ins-co-v-chatham-co-ga-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack