Now, we examine Hopkins' actions in denying our Rule 60 Motion to Vacate in the same matter.The first sign of Hopkins' laziness is found simply from looking at the dates on the documents involved. on March 13, 2017, and it raised a number of substantive issues, including fairly complex constitutional matters like due process and equal protection of the law, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
For example, a customer who’s loan request is received Monday before PM EST that is verified and approved by Check Into Cash, will typically receive the loan proceeds on Tuesday (if Tuesday is not a holiday). Some states require additional documentation, such as a bank statement, pay stub, social security card or state issued photo identification.
A detailed description of terms by state can be found on our Rates & Terms page.
*In some circumstances we may have additional requirements to complete your loan application. *The funding process typically occurs within 24 hours or the next business day after receiving a loan approval.
Some states require us to collect certain documents, such as pay stubs, bank statements, social security cards, etc. Loan requests processed before PM EST during non-holiday business days are usually funded the next business day.
(The Rule 60 motion and Hopkins order are embedded at the end of this post.) The issue in our motion is relatively simple: When a judge issues a number of orders in a case, and it's then found that he had a conflict that should have forced recusal, his orders generally are due to be vacated. Health Services Acquisition Corp, 486 US 847 (Supreme Court, 1988) deals with a violation of the federal statute (28 U. Although Judge Collins did not know of his fiduciary interest in the litigation, 868*868 he certainly should have known.
In fact, his failure to stay informed of this fiduciary interest may well constitute a separate violation of § 455. Moreover, providing relief in cases such as this will not produce injustice in other cases; to the contrary, the Court of Appeals' willingness to enforce § 455 may prevent a substantive injustice in some future case by encouraging a judge or litigant to more carefully examine possible grounds for disqualification and to promptly disclose them when discovered.
It is therefore appropriate to vacate the judgment unless it can be said that respondent did not make a timely request for relief, or that it would otherwise be unfair to deprive the prevailing party of its judgment.
It's undisputed that we made a timely request for relief, via Rule 60.
The following interviews belong to the Tallahassee and Florida History collection. By accessing any interview transcript, you acknowledge your understanding of the Program’s policies on using interviews, given in the Using the Collections section.
Transcripts are only available for Category “E” interviews whose OHP Control Numbers (OHPCN) are hyperlinked.
Most browsers’ search functions are activated by pressing CTRL F.