This is an extract of our Repose Direct Attack And Preclusion document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Outlines collection written by the top tier of NYU School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Repose: DIRECT ATTACKS AND PRECLUSION A. Direct Attacks on Judgment: go back to the court that issued the judgment and ask it to vacate Rule 60: On motion, court can within a reasonable time, no more than a year, relieve a party from judgment ordered b/c of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 59(b); fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by opposing party; if the judgment is void; if the judgment has been satisfied or if its based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or any other reason that justifies relief Remittitur: Although he can't directly reduce damages, a judge can grand a conditional new trial, unless plaintiff aggress to accept a reduced award of $X. Additur: in state courts, similar process, whereby a state can grant a conditional new trial unless defendant agrees to a higher award. Federal courts cannot use additur, though they can use remittitur. Kupferman v Consolidate Research Defendant seeks vacate of judgment for plaintiff based on Rule 60(b), fraud upon the Court. 2nd Circuit says failure to disclose an instrument which he could reasonably have supposed that his adversary knew of does not constitute "fraud upon the court." Court denies motion to vacate. Rozier v Ford Motor Co. Rosier asked Ford for some cost-benefit analysis it did, which it claimed it didn't have. Rozier later found it, alleged misrepresentation in not turning it over. Moving party has to show that but for the violation, it would have had a fuller and fairer opportunity to be heard. Pierce v Cook Driver who Cook had hired to transport materials got into accident, killed one and injured several. The families sued. He removed to federal court on diversity, but one of the plaintiffs got back into state court b/c a caretaker was from the same state. Federal court plaintiffs lost, in part due to an Oklahoma precedent. State court plaintiffs won when Okla. Sup Ct overturned that precedent. Federal Court plaintiffs who lost moved for rule 60(b)(6) relief based on "extraordinary situation." Court says that when plaintiffs are forced to litigate in federal court and lose, and other plaintiffs from the same incident are successful in state court, this is an extraordinary situation, and relief under 60(b)(6) is appropriate to accomplish justice.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.