Central Vermont Public Service Corporation v. Harold Herbert and Edith Herbert

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a motion seeking to vacate a judgment based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was timely four years later
• noting that “bankruptcy jurisdiction can exist only if the proceeding was core or was consented to by the parties”
• evaluating whether a proceeding is core “based upon the ‘nature of the proceeding,’ and ‘the ramifications of the dispute on the administration of the estate.’ ”
• distinguishing between jurisdictional challenge on direct appeal and challenge “[i]n the context of a Rule 60(b)(4
• observing that “if the underlying judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a movant's motion to vacate the judgment under [FRCP] 60(b)(4).” (quoting Jalapeno Prop. Mgmt., LLC v. Dukas, 265 F.3d 506, 515 (6th Cir. 2001)
• motion to challenge lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed four years after entry of judgment, was timely

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).