- 278 -
the judgment, relying on Warren's alleged fraud on the Court.
The District Court denied Robertson's motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, citing Moore's definition
of fraud on the court, observed that relief from a judgment for
fraud on the court does not necessarily require the moving party
to show that he was prejudiced by the misconduct. Quoting Hazel-
Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. at 246, the
Court of Appeals stated: "The Supreme Court, for example, has
explained this provision of the Rule not so much in terms of
whether the alleged misconduct prejudiced the opposing party but
more in terms of whether the alleged misconduct 'harms' the
integrity of the judicial process". Alexander v. Robertson,
supra at 424; see In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 882 F.2d at
916-917.
Reading Hazel-Atlas Glass in conjunction with Moore's
definition of fraud upon the court, the Court of Appeals further
observed that Robertson's assertion that Warren's misconduct had
subverted the integrity of the judicial process seemed to fit
with the proposition that relief may be granted pursuant to rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for fraud upon the
court where there is an extraordinary harm to the public. See
Alexander v. Robertson, supra at 424.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals sustained the District
Court's denial of Robertson's motion to vacate the judgment on
the grounds that: (1) There was no showing that Warren's
misconduct was designed to improperly influence the court in its
Page: Previous 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011