Martha Ann Brundage Rozier v. Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because Defendant withheld information that would have substantively changed the way the plaintiff would have responded, a new trial was justified
• holding that a plaintiff could obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3) when a defendant failed to respond to an interrogatory even though the defendant had knowledge it had possession of a document arguably responsive to the interrogatory
• noting that Rule 60(b)(3) relief is distinct from a motion alleging fraud upon the court
• explaining that the standard governing an independent action for “fraud on the court” is distinguishable from the standard governing claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3)
• reversing district court’s denial of appellant’s Rule 60(b)(3) claim based on affidavit showing that appellee knew that it had requested document in its possession but failed to produce it
• explaining that fraud on the court involves “only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which the attorney is implicated” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).