MCA, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• reiterating that whether a trial court employed an incorrect legal standard in denying a Rule 60(b) application is reviewed de novo
• unless elements of due process are not followed, absent class members will be bound by the judgment; elements include adequate representation
• “A claim that the trial court employed an incorrect legal standard, however, raises a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
• “Because of the significant interest in preserving the finality of judgments, Rule 60(b) motions are not to be taken lightly or easily granted.”
• “A motion to reopen a judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. This Court’s review of the grant or denial of such a motion is for an abuse of discretion.”
• “A party seeking to vacate an order on the ground that his or her opponent effectuated a fraud on the court bears a heavy burden . . . [and] requires a showing of ‘the most egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).