Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 60 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 60 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 60

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 60
INJUNCTIONS
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 60
CHAPTER 60
INJUNCTIONS
60.01 Injunction; against levy of execution issued against another than the plaintiff.
60.03 Injunction against removal of mortgaged personal property.
60.04 Injunction; sureties on bond of fiduciaries may restrain disposition of principal’s property.
60.05 Abatement of nuisances.
60.06 Abatement of nuisances; enforcement.
60.07 Assessment of damages after dissolution.
60.08 Injunctions sought by the state pursuant to statute shall issue without bond.
60.01 Injunction; against levy of execution issued against another than the plaintiff.When real estate is levied on, or an attempt to sell it under any execution or other process issued is made, or an attempt to sell it as the property of another person is made, chancery courts have jurisdiction to enjoin the sale on the application of the owner in possession of the real estate.
History.s. 1, ch. 3432, 1883; RS 1468; GS 1918; RGS 3180; CGL 4972; s. 15, ch. 67-254.
Note.Former s. 64.07.
60.03 Injunction against removal of mortgaged personal property.The removal from the state of any personal property mortgaged to secure a debt which has not matured at the time of the removal may be enjoined by any chancery court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is located.
History.RS 1472; GS 1920; RGS 3182; CGL 4974; s. 15, ch. 67-254.
Note.Former s. 64.09.
60.04 Injunction; sureties on bond of fiduciaries may restrain disposition of principal’s property.When actions are commenced on the bond of any executor, administrator, guardian or trustee, or for an accounting, the surety on the bond may apply to the court in which the action is pending, if in chancery, or if the action is at law, then to any chancery court having jurisdiction, for an injunction restraining any principal in the bond from disposing of his or her property and from encumbering or removing it from the county in which it is located until the final disposition of the action. If it appears on the application that there is danger that the principal may dispose of his or her property before final judgment so that there will not be sufficient property of the principal to satisfy any judgment that is rendered against the administrator, executor, guardian or trustee, the court shall issue an injunction on such terms as are proper, enjoining such principal from disposing of his or her property, or so much thereof as is necessary for the protection of the surety until the final disposition of the action. It is not necessary for the surety to show that any amounts are due by said administrator, executor, guardian or trustee but the judge granting the injunction may vacate it on the executor, administrator, guardian or trustee giving adequate security, to be approved by the court, to the surety conditioned to save him or her harmless for all loss or damage he or she sustains as surety.
History.s. 1, ch. 5406, 1905; RGS 3183; CGL 4975; s. 15, ch. 67-254; s. 317, ch. 95-147.
Note.Former s. 64.10.
60.05 Abatement of nuisances.
(1) When any nuisance as defined in s. 823.05 exists, the Attorney General, state attorney, city attorney, county attorney, sheriff, or any citizen of the county may sue in the name of the state on his or her relation to enjoin the nuisance, the person or persons maintaining it, and the owner or agent of the building or ground on which the nuisance exists.
(2) The court may allow a temporary injunction without bond on proper proof being made. If it appears by evidence or affidavit that a temporary injunction should be issued, the court, pending the determination on final hearing, may enjoin any of the following:
(a) The maintaining of a nuisance.
(b) The operating and maintaining of the place or premises where the nuisance is maintained.
(c) The owner or agent of the building or ground upon which the nuisance exists.
(d) The conduct, operation, or maintenance of any business or activity operated or maintained in the building or on the premises in connection with or incident to the maintenance of the nuisance.

The injunction shall specify the activities enjoined and may not preclude the operation of any lawful business not conducive to the maintenance of the nuisance complained of.

(3)(a) The defendant shall be given written notice to abate the nuisance within 10 days after the issuance of the notice. The notice must inform the defendant that an application for temporary injunction may be filed if the nuisance is not timely abated. If the nuisance is not timely abated, the defendant must be given a second written notice that informs the defendant that an application for a temporary injunction will be filed if the nuisance is not abated within 15 days after the end of the initial 10-day period. However, if the defendant responds to the first notice in writing within the initial 10-day period, and in such response alleges and provides proof that:
1. Nuisance abatement involves compliance with another law of this state and the requirements of such law make nuisance abatement within 10 days impossible; or
2. The terms of an executed contract to perform services necessary to abate the nuisance require more than 10 days to complete,

the defendant must be given a second written notice providing the defendant with an extended time period to abate the nuisance sufficient to comply with such other law or contract terms.

(b) A second notice sent under paragraph (a) must also provide the location where the application will be filed and the time when it will be filed. If the nuisance is not timely abated as provided in the second notice, the application for the temporary injunction must be filed as indicated in the notice.
(c) In addition to the information required under paragraphs (a) and (b), each notice must:
1. If applicable, describe the building, booth, tent, or place that is an alleged nuisance.
2. State the activities that led to the nuisance allegations.
3. State the actions necessary to abate the nuisance.
4. State that costs will be assessed if abatement of the nuisance is not completed and if the court determines that the nuisance exists.
(d) The notices provided in this subsection must be sent by personal service to the owner at his or her address as it appears on the latest tax assessment roll or to the tenant of such address. If an address is not found for the owner, the notices must be sent to the location of the alleged nuisance and displayed prominently and conspicuously at that location.
(4) Evidence of the general reputation of the alleged nuisance and place is admissible to prove the existence of the nuisance. An action filed by a citizen may not be dismissed unless the court is satisfied that it should be dismissed. Otherwise the action shall continue and the state attorney notified to proceed with it. If the action is brought by a citizen and the court finds that there was no reasonable ground for the action, the costs shall be taxed against the citizen.
(5) On trial if the existence of a nuisance is shown, the court shall issue a permanent injunction and order the costs to be paid by the persons establishing or maintaining the nuisance and shall adjudge that the costs are a lien on all personal property found in the place of the nuisance and on the failure of the property to bring enough to pay the costs, then on the real estate occupied by the nuisance. A lien may not attach to the real estate of any other than such persons unless a second written notice has been given in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) to the owner or his or her agent who fails to begin to abate the nuisance within the time specified therein. In a proceeding abating a nuisance pursuant to s. 823.10 or s. 823.05, if a tenant has been convicted of an offense under chapter 893 or s. 796.07, the court may order the tenant to vacate the property within 72 hours if the tenant and owner of the premises are parties to the nuisance abatement action and the order will lead to the abatement of the nuisance.
(6) If the action was brought by the Attorney General, a state attorney, or any other officer or agency of state government; if the court finds either before or after trial that there was no reasonable ground for the action; and if judgment is rendered for the defendant, the costs and reasonable attorney fees shall be taxed against the state.
History.ss. 2, 3, 4, ch. 7367, 1917; RGS 3223-3226; CGL 5029-5032; s. 1, ch. 20467, 1941; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 15, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 71-268; s. 14, ch. 73-334; s. 1, ch. 77-268; s. 8, ch. 87-243; s. 318, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 96-237; s. 31, ch. 2016-24; s. 1, ch. 2020-130.
Note.Former ss. 64.11-64.14.
60.06 Abatement of nuisances; enforcement.The court shall make such orders on proper proof as will abate all nuisances mentioned in s. 823.05, and has authority to enforce injunctions by contempt but the jurisdiction hereby granted does not repeal or alter s. 823.01.
History.s. 5, ch. 7367, 1917; RGS 3227; CGL 5033; s. 15, ch. 67-254.
Note.Former s. 64.15.
60.07 Assessment of damages after dissolution.In injunction actions, on dissolution, the court may hear evidence and assess damages to which a defendant may be entitled under any injunction bond, eliminating the necessity for an action on the injunction bond if no party has requested a jury trial on damages.
History.ss. 1, 3, ch. 26916, 1951; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 15, ch. 67-254.
Note.Former s. 64.16.
60.08 Injunctions sought by the state pursuant to statute shall issue without bond.In any action for injunctive relief sought by the state or one of its agencies as provided in ss. 501.207(1)(b), 542.23, and 895.05(5), any injunction sought shall issue without bond or surety and no bond or surety shall be required during the term of the injunction.
History.s. 5, ch. 2001-266.

F.S. 60 on Google Scholar

F.S. 60 on Casetext

Amendments to 60


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 60
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S322.60 - TRAFFIC OFFENSE - REPEALED 2008-176 - M: F
S328.60 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - DELETE INFRACTION - I: N
S633.60 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - RENUMBERED. SEE REC # 7542 - M: S
S817.60 1 - LARC - OF CREDIT CARD - M: F
S817.60 2 - LARC - LOST OR DELIVERED BY MISTAKE CREDIT CARD - M: F
S817.60 3 - FRAUD-ILLEG USE CREDIT CARDS - PURCHASE SELL ANOTHERS - M: F
S817.60 4 - FRAUD-ILLEG USE CREDIT CARDS - AS DEBT SECURITY - M: F
S817.60 5 - FRAUD-ILLEG USE CREDIT CARDS - DEAL IN ANOTHERS - F: T
S817.60 6a - FORGERY OF - FALSELY EMBOSS OR ALTER CREDIT CARD - F: T
S817.60 6a - COUNTERFEITING OF - FALSELY MAKE CREDIT CARD - F: T
S817.60 6a - PASS FORGED - FALSELY EMBOSSED OR ALTERED CREDIT CARD - F: T
S817.60 6a - PASS COUNTERFEITED - FALSELY MADE CREDIT CARD - F: T
S817.60 6a - POSSESS COUNTERFEITED - CREDIT CARD INVOICE SALES DRAFT VOUCHER ETC - F: T
S817.60 6b - POSSESS COUNTERFEITED - CREDIT CARDS TWO OR MORE - F: T
S817.60 7 - FRAUD-ILLEG USE CREDIT CARDS - SIGN ANOTHERS - M: F
S817.60 8 - LARC - POSS RECEIVE RETAIN STOLEN CREDIT DEBIT CARD - F: T



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), presided as Circuit Justice for Virginia. . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . App. 1989) (overruling Ex parte Nowabbi , 60 Okla. . . . See, e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 3243 (creating jurisdiction for Kansas); Act of May 31, 1946, ch. 279, 60 Stat . . . Lewallen , 276 U.S. 58, 60, 48 S.Ct. 248, 72 L.Ed. 467 (1928). . . . III and IV, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat. 419; see Marlin , 276 U.S., at 60, 48 S.Ct. 248. . . . See, e.g. , Ex parte Nowabbi , 60 Okla.Crim. 111, 61 P.2d 1139 (1936), overruled by State v. . . .

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME, v. PENNSYLVANIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 2367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brown , 441 U.S. 281, 297-298, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979). . . . They also gave interested parties 60 days to submit comments. Id. , at 47792, 47838. . . .

B. CHIAFALO, v. WASHINGTON, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Most relevant here, States began about 60 years ago to back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction . . . Cuellar de Osorio , 573 U.S. 41, 60, 134 S.Ct. 2191, 189 L.Ed.2d 98 (2014) (KAGAN, J., for the Court) . . .

P. BARR, v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . There, the Court invalidated part of § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. 1 Cranch 137, 179-180, 2 L.Ed. 60 . . . Lampert , 741 F.3d 48, 60 (C.A.10 2014). That's not to say the inference is irrebuttable. . . . Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). . . .

ESPINOZA, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Connecticut , 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). . . . Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 178, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). . . . Gilleo , 512 U.S. 43, 60, 114 S.Ct. 2038, 129 L.Ed.2d 36 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring), thus tending . . . Connecticut , 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). . . . See id. , at 300-301, 307, 311, 60 S.Ct. 900. . . .

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, v. BOOKING. COM B. V., 140 S. Ct. 2298 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Today, the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946, provides federal statutory protection for trademarks. 60 Stat . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Respondent 60-66. That, however, is not this case. . . . Hallock , 309 U.S. 106, 119, 60 S.Ct. 444, 84 L.Ed. 604 (1940). . . . Brief for Petitioners in No. 18-1323, pp. 45-47; Brief for Respondent in No. 18-1323, pp. 60-62. . . . Raich , 239 U.S. 33, 38-39, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915) ; Pierce v. . . .

SEILA LAW LLC, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Tr. of Oral Arg. 58-60, 76-77. . . . Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 178, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), but we cannot re-write Congress's work by creating offices . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Uhl , 239 U.S. 3, 36 S.Ct. 2, 60 L.Ed. 114 (1915), left no doubt. . . . Uhl , 239 U.S. 3, 36 S.Ct. 2, 60 L.Ed. 114 (1915), for example, the Court observed that Ekiu decided . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020)

. . . force may, they tell us, result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 . . . For example, federal immigration laws provide over 60 temporary nonimmigrant visa options, including . . . Brown , 441 U.S. 281, 295, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

L. BAXTER v. BRACEY,, 140 S. Ct. 1862 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Rev. 1, 56-60. . . .

ROGERS, v. GREWAL,, 140 S. Ct. 1865 (U.S. 2020)

. . . The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home: History Versus Ahistorical Standards of Review, 60 . . .

ANDRUS v. TEXAS, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Id. , at 60. The jury sentenced Andrus to death. . . . photo array, 46 Tr. 66, 69-70, and testified at trial that the robber was in the courtroom, id. , at 59-60 . . .

J. THOLE, v. U. S. BANK N. A, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (U.S. 2020)

. . . in a " 'trust fund' " managed for the participants' and beneficiaries' " 'exclusive benefit.' " App. 60 . . . See 29 U.S.C. § 1103(a) ; App. 60; see also n. 2, supra ; Blair , 300 U.S. at 13, 57 S.Ct. 330 ; Bogert . . . App. 60-61. . . . See App. 60-61; 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1109. . . .

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, LLC, III v. LLC, v. LLC, n De De La El Y v., 140 S. Ct. 1649 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Nearly 60 years ago, the people of Puerto Rico "embark[ed] on [a] project of constitutional self-governance . . . ever simply cede its power under that Clause to legislate for the Territories, and did it do so nearly 60 . . .

BANISTER, v. DAVIS,, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Proc. 60(b). . . . Proc. 60 ; Mann, Note, History and Interpretation of Federal Rule 60(b), 25 Temp. L. . . . Proc. 60(c)(1). . . . Proc. 60(c)(2). . . . Proc. 60(b)(1)-(6). . . .

LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC. v. MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1589 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Felsen , 442 U.S. 127, 131, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) ; see also Wright & Miller § 4407. . . .

KELLY, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Tr. of Oral Arg. 60. Even if so, it would make no difference. . . .

UNITED STATES, v. SINENENG- SMITH, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Alabama , 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940), the Court determined that an antipicketing . . . invalid on its face" due to its "sweeping proscription of freedom of discussion," id. , at 101-105, 60 . . . Id. , at 105, 60 S.Ct. 736. . . . Id. , at 97, 60 S.Ct. 736. . . . Thornhill , supra , at 97-98, 100-101, 60 S.Ct. 736 ; cf. Chicago v. . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Borden Co. , 308 U.S. 188, 198, 60 S.Ct. 182, 84 L.Ed. 181 (1939) ); see also FCC v. . . . Dickerson , 310 U.S. 554, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940). . . . See 310 U.S. at 561, 60 S.Ct. 1034. . . . Id. , at 555-557, 60 S.Ct. 1034. . . . Dickerson , 310 U.S. at 556-557, 60 S.Ct. 1034 ; see also Will , 449 U.S. at 206-207, 101 S.Ct. 471. . . .

GEORGIA, v. PUBLIC. RESOURCE. ORG, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial . . . Sonotone Corp. , 442 U.S. 330, 341, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979). . . .

BARTON, v. P. BARR,, 140 S. Ct. 1442 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Sessions , 865 F.3d 60, 68 (C.A.2 2017) ; Ardon v. . . .

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII, v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND,, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Idaho 2009) (same in respect to instances where it would take "between 60 and 420 years" for pollutants . . .

ROMAG FASTENERS, INC. v. FOSSIL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1492 (U.S. 2020)

. . . The relevant section of the Lanham Act governing remedies for trademark violations, § 35, 60 Stat. 439 . . .

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, v. A. CHRISTIAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Layne & Bowler Co. , 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916) ). . . . Sonotone Corp. , 442 U.S. 330, 341, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979). . . . Layne & Bowler Co. , 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916). . . . Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009). . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Louisiana , 441 U.S. 130, 136, and n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 1623, 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979) (describing both plurality . . . Id. , at 12 (emphasis added). 541 U.S. 36, 60-63, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). 556 U.S. 332 . . . room in a crowded legislative docket and securing the agreement of the House, the Senate (in effect, 60 . . . Sandford , 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857). . . . Louisiana , 441 U.S. 130, 136, 99 S.Ct. 1623, 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979) ( Apodaca "conclude[d] that a jury's . . .

KANSAS, v. GLOVER, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . App. to Pet. for Cert. 60-61. The District Court granted Glover's motion to suppress. . . . North Carolina , 574 U.S. 54, 60, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014). . . . that " 'the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is "reasonableness." ' " Heien , 574 U.S. at 60 . . .

VF JEANSWEAR LP v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 140 S. Ct. 1202 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Further, the EEOC must issue the right to sue notice after 180 days-60 days after the timeline contemplated . . . that Congress "expected the EEOC to complete investigations within 120 days[, l]eaving an additional 60 . . .

COMCAST CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN- OWNED MEDIA,, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Warley , 245 U.S. 60, 78-79, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149 (1917) (emphasis added); see also Jones v. . . .

K. KAHLER, v. KANSAS, 140 S. Ct. 1021 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Strasburg , 60 Wash. 106, 116, 110 P. 1020, 1022-1023 (1910) ; cf. State v. . . .

L. ALLEN, v. A. COOPER, III,, 140 S. Ct. 994 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Duchesne , 60 U.S. (19 How.) 183, 197, 15 L.Ed. 595 ; Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. . . . Madison , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 166, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). . . .

HOLGUIN- HERNANDEZ, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 762 (U.S. 2020)

. . . petitioner in this case, Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez, was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 60 . . .

MONASKY, v. TAGLIERI, 140 S. Ct. 719 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Tr. of Oral Arg. 60-61. . . .

C. HERNANDEZ, v. MESA, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 735 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Passman , 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), a former congressional staffer's Fifth . . . Passman , 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), and against prison officials accused of . . . Passman , 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (sex-discrimination claim against a congressman . . .

WOLF, v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,, 140 S. Ct. 681 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Zbaraz , 442 U.S. 1309, 1316, 99 S.Ct. 2095, 60 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers), it is . . .

P. BARR, v. H. ROANE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 353 (U.S. 2019)

. . . the Court of Appeals should not be able to decide this case, one way or the other, within the next 60 . . . vacate is without prejudice to the filing of a renewed application if the injunction is still in place 60 . . .

THOMPSON, v. HEBDON,, 140 S. Ct. 348 (U.S. 2019)

. . . McKee , 649 F.3d 34, 60-61 (C.A.1 2011) ; Ognibene v. . . .

KERTON, v. SOCIETY HILL AT DROYERS POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,, 140 S. Ct. 222 (U.S. 2019)

. . . No. 19-60 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

P. BARR, v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT,, 140 S. Ct. 3 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Zbaraz , 442 U.S. 1309, 1311, 99 S.Ct. 2095, 60 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers); see also . . .

EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, v. BARR,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

. . . ECF Nos. 60, 61. Defendants have previously agreed with this characterization. . . .

ELHADY, v. H. KABLE,, 391 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2019)

. . . No. 299 at 58-60]. . . .

CRUTSINGER v. DAVIS,, 140 S. Ct. 2 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Jack Crutsinger seeks to reopen his petition for habeas corpus under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 . . . The District Court denied Crutsinger's Rule 60(b) motion and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . . . potential tension between this Court's decision in Gonzalez and the Fifth Circuit's approach to Rule 60 . . . Several Circuits recognize that a change in decisional law, by itself, may justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief . . . the possibility that a change in controlling precedent, even standing alone, might give reason for 60 . . .

V. CASSIDY, v. HALYARD HEALTH, INC., 391 F. Supp. 3d 474 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

. . . However, Plaintiff has produced evidence that all of these issues were addressed: the 60-day update to . . . this rebuilding was predicated on youth, and the employees in 2015 and 2016 ranged in age from 29 to 60 . . .

BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC. RX, LLC,, 935 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. at 1359-60. BioDelivery is entitled to such decision. . . . Ct. at 1359-60. . . .

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 935 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rey , 622 F.3d 1251, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing how courts have found informational standing . . .

UNITED STATES v. LILLARD,, 935 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Massachusetts , 308 U.S. 79, 83, 60 S.Ct. 34, 84 L.Ed. 93 (1939) ). . . .

D. WALDRON, TRUSTEE FOR VENTURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 935 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . parties is ... a United States agency," then the notice of appeal "may be filed by any party within 60 . . .

G. STEPHENS v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a, 935 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . certainly understandable given that Stephens was between six and eight years old at the time-more than 60 . . .

SCHINK, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Hernandez diagnosed Schink with bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder and assigned a GAF score of 60. . . . The known GAF scores ranged from 50 to 60, reinforcing that Schink had at least moderate difficulty in . . . Scores between 51 and 60 indicate moderate difficulty in functioning, whereas scores between 61 and 70 . . .

F. SHARPE, v. UNITED STATES,, 935 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . J.A. 858-60. First, the memorandum noted that, before his separation, Mr. . . .

L. SMITH, v. SHARP,, 935 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . a Verbal IQ interval of 51-61, a Performance IQ interval of 59-73, and a full scale interval of 52-60 . . . a Verbal IQ interval of 53-63, a Performance IQ interval of 58-71, and a full scale interval of 52-60 . . .

UNITED STATES v. FITZGERALD,, 935 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . State , 125 Nev. 60, 203 P.3d 90, 92-93 (2009), the Nevada Supreme Court defined "prolonged physical . . . State , 125 Nev. 60, 203 P.3d 90 (2009), the Supreme Court of Nevada considered the meaning of the phrase . . .

PLEITEZ- LOPEZ, v. P. BARR,, 935 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . date, the IJ (through an interpreter) instructed Petitioner that he must have his fingerprints retaken 60 . . .

BIRD, v. i DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DHS, R., 935 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Laws 60, 61-62. . . . Laws 60, 61-62. . . . Lockheed Aircraft Corp. , 613 F.2d 757, 759-60 (9th Cir. 1980) ("[E]ach day without promotion constituted . . . Laws 60, 61-62. . . .

EDMO, v. CORIZON, INC. Al v. Al, 935 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . WPATH SOC at 60. . . . WPATH SOC at 60. . . . does not meet the first WPATH criterion-"persistent, well documented gender dysphoria," WPATH SOC at 60 . . .

IN RE BOWLES,, 935 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Bowles, whose cases were in postconviction litigation, 60 days from October 1, 2004-the date Florida . . . Bowles could not present his potentially viable Atkins claim because he failed to present it within 60 . . .

FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC. a a v. H. FRIEDMAN, UDT UDT, 935 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Several months later, Defendants moved the Arizona District Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 . . . On remand, the district court again granted Defendants' Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, after . . . STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court "review[s] de novo ... a district court's ruling upon a Rule 60(b)(4) motion . . .

ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH NEPHEW, INC., 935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . J.A. 1768 at col. 7 ll. 41-44; see also J.A. 1767 at col. 5 ll. 58-60. . . . As Arthrex concedes, Appellant's Br. 60-61 & n.10, three references cited during prosecution describe . . .

CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. OWT ET Co., 935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . are recited in the asserted claims or described in the specification. '275 patent at col. 3, ll. 54-60 . . . See '275 patent at col. 3, ll. 54-60. . . .

GALDERMA LABORATORIES L. P. S. A. S. A. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 390 F. Supp. 3d 582 (D. Del. 2019)

. . . DX-16 at 2:60-62. . . .

DYROFF, v. ULTIMATE SOFTWARE GROUP, INC., 934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Zuckerberg , 753 F.3d 1354, 1359-60 (D.C. . . .

J. MURRAY, M. D. a v. MAYO CLINIC, a M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. a, 934 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Transp., Inc. , 60 F.3d 1300, 1301 (8th Cir. 1995). . . . See Buchanan , 85 F.3d at 200 ; Pedigo , 60 F.3d at 1301 ; cf. Baird ex rel. Baird v. . . .

SEMPLE, a a k a a v. GRISWOLD, Be USA A., 934 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Thus, district 23 has 51,723 more voters than district 21, and that variance is slightly more than 60% . . .

JANVRIN, J J v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., 934 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . It accounted for roughly 60% of CTAP's business from the Bowman terminal, which served Continental's . . .

UNITED STATES v. V. GILLIAM,, 934 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Trial Tr., Vol I., at 60, United States v. Gilliam , No. 4:15-cr-00354-BP (W.D. Mo. . . .

SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. BRISTOL EXCAVATING, INC., 935 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . The third letter, another from the mid-60's, covers a third-party payment from a taxi cab company to . . .

WOLFINGTON, v. RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES II PC, a k a, 935 F.3d 187 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . entered, it must also move to set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60 . . . JA 60 (reasoning that the bank records would show that "Plaintiff made no payments to Rothman"). . . .

BACA v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, G. T. L. M., 935 F.3d 887 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . United Farm Workers Nat'l Union , 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979). . . . Id. at 59-60, 117 S.Ct. 1055. . . . Id. at 60, 117 S.Ct. 1055 (quoting Yniguez v. Arizona , 975 F.2d 646, 647 (9th Cir. 1992) ). . . . Id. at 60-61, 117 S.Ct. 1055. . . . The Federalist No. 60 (Alexander Hamilton) (George W. Carey & James McClellan eds., 2001). . . .

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ; Lopez , 172 F.3d at 759 n.2. . . . fulfilled [their] gatekeeper dut[ies]" by communicating the inmate's symptoms to a higher-up, id. at 759-60 . . . Br. at 60. . . . application of Utah law" in the context of denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHAYOTA, v., 934 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . State , 10 Tenn. 58, 59-60 (Err. & App. 1821) (holding that "depositions ... may be read on trial against . . . LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 21.2(e), at 60 (2d ed. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CUEVAS- LOPEZ,, 934 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . prior sentence[s] of imprisonment" of over 13 months (for which three points are added) and between 60 . . .

BOWLES, v. DESANTIS,, 934 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2019)

. . . Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 692 n.13, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ). . . .

UNITED STATES v. O LAUGHLIN, 934 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . Texas , 441 U.S. 418, 428, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) ("In a civil commitment state power is . . .

CONILLE v. COUNCIL AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, 935 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)

. . . On December 20, 2017, Local 402 filed a timely motion to amend the judgment under " Rules 59(e) and 60 . . . Though Local 402 titled its motion as one under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(6), not Rule 52(b), nomenclature . . .

TURCO v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY,, 935 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . JA 60, 64. JA 75. JA 64. JA 86. JA 87. JA 88-89. JA 205. JA 145. JA 145. JA 145. JA 146. JA 146. . . .

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN, v. PIER IMPORTS, INCORPORATED W. H., 935 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . reach: Pier 1's Fiscal Year 2015 earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization were $60 . . .

BENTLEY, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, LLC,, 935 F.3d 76 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 46a-60. . . . Stat. § 46a-60. . . .

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC., 934 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . two techniques are referred to as "wire bonding" and "flip chip bonding." '927 patent, col. 1, ll. 60 . . . See In re EMC Corp. , 677 F.3d at 1359-60 ; Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, 934 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2019)

. . . . § 2251(e), the statutory maximum sentence is 30 years for each count, or 60 for both. . . . sentences of 360 months' imprisonment on each count, for a total custodial sentence of 720 months (60 . . . Here the district court calculated the "total punishment" as 60 years; following the Guidelines, it imposed . . .

SENNE v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP. LLC LLC LP St. LLC LLC LLC LLC L. P. L. P. LLC LLC L. P. AZPB L. P. P LLC LLC LP LLP LLC LLC,, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Rev. 547, 558-60 (1986) ). 2. . . .

IN RE SWEARINGEN,, 935 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Ct. 60, 196 L.Ed.2d 32 (2016) ; Swearingen v. Keller , 2017 WL 6803366 (W.D. Tex. . . .

BOXILL, v. P. O GRADY E. E. T., 935 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . This standard was announced over 60 years ago in Conley v. . . .

NEW YORK STATE CITIZENS COALITION FOR CHILDREN, v. J. POOLE,, 935 F.3d 56 (2nd Cir. 2019)

. . . Sims , 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979). . . .

UNITED STATES v. EUGENE,, 392 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D. Mass. 2019)

. . . October, 2011, and in January, 2012, the Court sentenced him to 188 months in prison to be followed by 60 . . .

NALPROPION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., 934 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

. . . naltrexone in an amount effective to enhance the weight loss activity of bupropion. '626 patent col. 38 l. 60 . . . effects of long-term naltrexone administration on body weight and obesity, administering naltrexone to 60 . . .

JIE FANG Li v. DIRECTOR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 935 F.3d 172 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . United Farm Workers Nat'l Union , 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979) ). . . .

HAWKINS v. I- TV DIGITALIS TAVKOZLESI ZRT. f k a DMCC Rt. DIGI RCS RDS S. A. RCS S. A. DIGI N. V. v. i- TV f k a DMCC Rt. DIGI RCS RDS S. A. RCS S. A. DIGI N. V., 935 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . they moved the court to set aside the default judgment as void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 . . . We agree with the Plaintiffs and reverse the district court's ruling on the Rule 60(b)(4) motion. . . . counsel, moved to set aside the judgment as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 60 . . . While we usually review orders denying Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion, whether a judgment . . . is void under Rule 60(b)(4) presents an issue of law that we review de novo. . . .

UNITED STATES v. NORMAN,, 935 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2019)

. . . Because Count 3 required a mandatory 60-month consecutive term of imprisonment, Norman's effective Guidelines . . . then sentenced Norman to 156 months of imprisonment, consisting of 96 months for Counts 1 and 2 and 60 . . .

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR SEIDENBACH, INCORPORATED, v., 935 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Absent something else happening, like an appellate decision, a Rule 60(b) motion, or a new lawsuit, the . . . dismissed with prejudice are no different: an appellate court may reverse, a party can file a Rule 60 . . .

UNITED STATES v. CLARK,, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . the affidavit important and damaging credibility information about one informant. 831 F.3d 454, 459-60 . . .

IN RE MATTHEWS, In In In In III,, 934 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . District Court sentenced Dupree to 248 months' imprisonment on Count 1 to be served concurrently with 60 . . .

GOLDEN v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v., 934 F.3d 302 (3rd Cir. 2019)

. . . App. 132, ¶ 60. . . .

YOUKHANNA v. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS C., 934 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2019)

. . . R. 67-14 (Youkhanna Dep. at 59-60) (Page ID #1796) (explaining he was prevented from describing the history . . .

IN RE JOHNSON, v., 935 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . execution is imminent has presented to us both a request to review the district court's denial of his Rule 60 . . . June 24, 2019 Johnson filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 . . . This court reviews the district court's order denying a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion, . . . Johnson to transform his Rule 60(b) motion into a successive petition. . . . We DENY a COA on the district court's order rejecting the Rule 60(b) motion. . . .

IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE S SUNDAY TICKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Jr. v. LLC LLC NFL LLC LLC LP LLC LLC NFL LP LLC LP LLC LP Co. LLC LP LLC, 933 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2019)

. . . Supp. 60, 67 (D. Md. 1962), aff'd , 323 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1963). . . . Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. , 310 U.S. 150, 223, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940), or otherwise limits competitors . . .

J. MALOUF, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,, 933 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Malouf's own testimony about the percentage of UASNM bond trades that he had conducted (60%). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLAIR,, 933 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Blair's "condition is not so unusual as to distinguish him from any other defendants over the age of 60 . . .

DOE, v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO,, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . Univ. of Chicago , 441 U.S. 677, 689, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). . . .