United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that vacatur motions “based on the potential hardship resulting from inconsistent judgments” are properly brought under Rule 60(b)(6) because such claims are “not easily categorized as ‘mistake’ or ‘inadvertence’ under Rule 60(b)(1)”
• noting that “Congress’s repeated amendment of the relevant provisions of the statute without expressing any disapproval” of the BIA’s interpretation is “persuasive evidence that the [Agency’s] interpretation is the one intended by Congress” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• analyzing whether relief was warranted pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) based on potential hardship resulting from inconsistent judgments in related cases
• “A circuit court’s announcement of a new rule of federal law ... [is] insufficient without more to justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief.” (quotation omitted)
• “The two provisions are exclusive and ‘an appellant cannot circumvent the one-year limitation [of Rule 60(b)(1)] by invoking the residual clause (6) of Rule 60(b).”
• “We have warned, however, that a Rule 60 motion ‘may not be used as a substitute for appeal’ and that a claim based on legal error alone is ‘inadequate.’” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).