Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Kaiser may not now collaterally attack the award under the guise of a motion to set aside the judgment confirming the award,” and noting that “[n]ewly discovered evidence does not justify vacation of an [arbitration] award”
• noting that motions to vacate and confirm arbitra- tion awards arise directly out of contract
• involving an attempt to vacate an arbitration award under Rule 60 (b) rather than the FAA
• noting application of 19 FAA to awards made “within its purview”
• “Clause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding clauses.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).