Holscher v. Minnesota

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that perjury by a witness will not suffice to constitute a fraud on the court, but an attorney’s knowing involvement in a scheme to suborn perjury should certainly be considered a fraud on the court
• indicating that fraud on the court involves “corruption of the judicial process itself’ (quoting In re Whitney-Forbes, 770 F.2d 692, 698 (7th Cir. 1985))
• stating that evidence of conspiracy between client and attorney was necessary for action under Rule 60(b)
• explaining that strategic litigation decisions are not fraud on the court
• determining, under Rule 11, that a “minimal factual inquiry and cursory legal investigation” gives rise to sanctions
• district court may hear independent action alleging that judgment resulted from fraud on the court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).