U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1963

John J. Knight and Delia K. Knight v. David Hersh and Nettie Hersh

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 10, 1963 · Per Curiam

313 F.2d 879; 114 U.S. App. D.C. 198; 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6488 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Samuel Shapiro, Washington, D. C., for appellees., Before Burger, Circuit Judge, Bell, Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit,* and Wright, Circuit Judge.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

In re St. Stephen's 350 East 116th St. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2004)
Zinke v. United States Department of Treasury (In re Zinke) (District Court, E.D. New York 1992)
In re Seisay (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1986)
In re Chipwich, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1986)
Meyers v. Canton (District Court, Virgin Islands 1969)

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 case has been here before. Knight v. Hersh, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 297 F.2d 438 (1961). At that time we affirmed the finding of the District Court that appellees had acquired, by adverse possession, 1 a three-foot strip of land formerly owned by appellants’ predecessors in title. Now the case is before us on appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P., on the basis of alleged newly discovered evidence.

This motion addresses itself to the sound discretion of the District Judge. 2 In denying it, he filed no written reasons. We believe the denial may be supported on either of two grounds: (1) lack of sufficient showing of due diligence timely to obtain the evidence now offered; and (2) the probability that the newly discovered evidence would not change the result.

Affirmed.

. 12 D.C.Code § 201 (1961). And see 16 D.C.Code § 1501 (1961).

. The trial judge also passed on the Rule 60(b) motion.

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