Reopening final judgments
Rubicon Resources v. Ratha
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Rubicon Resources asks the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that, according to the company, treated a later change in the law as a reason to reopen a final judgment and reconsider other grounds for that judgment.
- Who it affects
- Rubicon did not get Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's handling of its final judgment.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition asks whether Rule 60(b), a rule for reopening judgments, allowed those steps.
Rubicon says the Ninth Circuit treated a later change to the governing statute as a reason to reopen the judgment and reconsider other grounds for it.
Question presented
1. Whether a post-judgment amendment to the governing statute is an impermissible basis for reopening a final judgment retroactively under Rule 60(b)(6). 2. Whether a court of appeals exceeds its authority under Rule 60(b) when it reviews the merits of the underlying judgment de novo, rather than limiting review to the Rule 60(b) decision and applying abuse of discretion.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
More questions
- Did the denial endorse the Ninth Circuit's reasoning?
- No. The refusal to review was not an approval of the Ninth Circuit's reasoning or a decision about which side was right.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.