- 273 -
Id. at 245-246.
The Supreme Court further rejected the argument that alleged
lack of diligence by Hazel in discovering the fraud should serve
to bar relief. Observing that the fraud in question did not
concern only private parties or a single litigant, the Supreme
Court stated:
There are issues of great moment to the public in a
patent suit. Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent
Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661 * * *; Morton Salt Co. v.
G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 * * *. Furthermore,
tampering with the administration of justice in the
manner indisputably shown here involves far more than
an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against
the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the
public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently
be tolerated consistently with the good order of
society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the
integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon
the diligence of litigants. * * *
Id. at 246.
Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the assertion that
relief should be denied on the ground that the fraudulent article
was not "basic" to the Court of Appeals' decision. In short, the
Supreme Court held that an appraisal of the influence of the
fraudulent article on the Court of Appeals' decision was not
necessary insofar as Hartford had considered the article material
and relied upon the article in obtaining a decision in its favor
from the Court of Appeals. See id. at 246-247.
Some courts hold that the term “fraud on the court” should
be construed consistently with the policy of preserving the
finality of judgments. See Drobny v. Commissioner, 113 F.3d at
Page: Previous 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011