Square Construction Company and La Fera Contracting Company v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[a] party seeking relief under [Rule 60(b)(3)] must also prove the misconduct complained of by clear and convincing evidence” in order to obtain such relief
• vacating denial of Rule 60(b)(3) motion and concluding that the district court’s finding that evidence was not withheld was clearly erroneous
• vacating denial of Rule 60(b)(3) motion and concluding that the district court’s finding that evidence was not withheld was clearly erroneous
• vacating denial of Rule 60(b)(3) motion and concluding that the district court’s finding that evidence was not withheld was clearly erroneous
• vacating denial of Rule 60(b)(3) motion and concluding that the district court’s finding that evidence was not withheld was clearly erroneous
• “Setting aside a judgment under [Rule] 60(b)(3) does not require that the [fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct] be sufficient to alter the district court's judgment[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).