United States v. Salvatore Cirami, Salvatore Cirami & Margaret Cirami

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the “complete disappearance” of counsel might justify relief under Rule 60(b)
• noting that plaintiff, whose counsel failed to oppose summary judgment, “frequently inquired] about the status of his lawsuit” and received “assurances from his attorney, relayed by his accountant, that the matter was in hand”
• finding that the “constructive disappearance” of defendants’ attorney by “neglect[ing] almost completely his clients’ business while at the same time assuring them that he was attending to it” provided a basis for Rule 60(b)(6) relief
• recognizing attorney’s mental illness as grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)
• stressing that in the context of Rule 60(b)(6) motions, “courts should not encourage the reopening of final judgments or casually permit the relitigation of litigated issues out of a friendliness to claims of unfortunate failures to put in one’s best case”
• pointing to evidence that one of the plaintiffs was repeatedly assured by his lawyer that the matter was being handled in excusing default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).