id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-2565	Harvey, William F.	Civil Procedure and Jurisdiction	1984	24	.pdf	application/pdf	11481	651	67	The supreme court agreed with that statement in general, but observed that [t]he additional grounds for relief alleged by Oxidermo in the second and third motions were either discoverable at the time the first Rule 60(B) motion was filed or related to an alleged substantive defense available to Oxidermo . . . .' 50 The court discouraged the repetitive filing of Trial Rule 60(B) mo- tions by a party suffering a default judgment and observed that when the grounds found under Trial Rule 60(B)(1) through (4) are available, then the party has up to one year from the date of the entry of default or grant of default judgment to make such a motion. Thus, the court concluded that although there was appellate jurisdiction in the case, the issue of excessive damages was not reviewable by the ap- pellate court because the defendant failed to raise the issue in the first motion filed under Trial Rule 60(B).	cache/inlawrev-2565.pdf	txt/inlawrev-2565.txt