Kramer, Mark Lee v. Rumsfeld, Donald

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “extraordinary circumstances are not present when . . . there has been an intervening change in case law” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that Rule 60(b)(6) relief was inappropriate when plaintiff could have obtained, or at least sought, the requested remedy earlier in litigation
• noting that \courts should grant Rule 60(b)(6) motions only in ‘extraordinaiy circumstances\’ (quoting Ackermann v. Um`ted States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (l950))
• observing that a party \must clear a very high bar to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6)\ and that the rule should be used \only sparingly\
• observing that a party “must clear a very high bar to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6)” and that the rule should be used “only sparingly”
• vacating in part the district court’s order because there were no “extraordinary circumstances” existed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).