Conaway v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that district courts must “strike[] a balance between serving the ends of justice and preserving the finality of judgments” when considering a motion for relief under Rule 60(b
• “[C]ourts may consider certain affirmative defenses, such as [issue preclusion] and claim preclusion, sua sponte.”
• “[T]he decision whether to grant such relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
• “Of course, consistently with Pemex, . . . [if] giving effect to the judgment annulling the award would offend” U.S. public policy, the court may deny vacatur
• “[T]he party opposing vacatur of a judgment enforcing a later-annulled award may show in support of its opposition that giving effect to the judgment annulling the award would offend” public policy.
• “[A] motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).