Matter of Steven M. v. State of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that vaca-tur was appropriate \unless it can be said that respondent did not make a timely request for relief\
• holding grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) cannot constitute an extraordinary circumstance under Rule 60(b)(6)
• stating that vacatur was appropriate “unless it can be said that respondent did not make a timely request for relief”
• stating that vacatur was appropriate \unless it can be said that respondent did not make a timely request for relief\
• affirming that a district court judge 8 was disqualified from holding a civil bench trial because he sat on the board of an interested 9 party
• noting that Rule 60(b)(6) and Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are “mutually exclusive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).