U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Boomhower, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance Company and Dennis J. Kane

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 9, 1958 · Miller, Washington, Danaher

251 F.2d 385; 102 U.S. App. D.C. 144; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3564 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Thaddeus G. Benton, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Russell Hardy, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Dickson R. Loos, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Alexander M. Heron, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee American Automobile Insurance Co., Mr. Edward A. White, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Kane.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Wilson Research Corp. v. Piolite Plastics Corp. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1964)
Philippine National Bank v. Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a sequel to Boomhower, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance Company, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 220 F.2d 488, certiorari denied, 1955, 350 U.S. 833, 76 S.Ct. 67, 100 L.Ed. 743. 1 Appeal is now taken from an order of the District Court in that case denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for a new trial under Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., which alleged newly-discovered evidence. 2 The District Court concluded that while this evidence - — which appellant argues shows perjury - — was of a character tending to impeach the testimony of a witness at the trial, it was not likely to lead to a change in the result reached.

We think the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The evidence can only doubtfully be described as newly-discovered : plaintiff-appellant could have taken the witness’ deposition or otherwise made timely discovery. Certainly the matter offered does not reach the gravity contemplated by the “any other reason justifying relief” provision of Rule 60(b) (6), even assuming that provision to be applicable here. Cf. Klapprott v. United States, 1949, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266; 3 Freeman, Judgments, § 1241 (5th ed. 1925); 7 Moore, Federal Practice, pars. 60.24, 60.-27 (1955).

Affirmed.

. See also Boomhower, Inc., v. Boomhower, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 243 F.2d 254.

. This motion was filed twenty-two months after the District Court’s dismissal of the original complaint, and fifteen months after our affirmance of that dismissal.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.