Master Key Antitrust Litig., in Re, 580 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Master Key Antitrust Litig., in Re, 580 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Bank of New York (ca2, 1994-01-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bank of New York
2d Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Relief under Rule 60(b), however, may be granted only in “extra.ordinary circumstances.” See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-202 , 71 S.Ct. 209, 212-14 , 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.1986); see also In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 460, 463 (D.Conn.1977), aff'd, 580 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bank Of New York
2d Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Relief under Rule 60(b), however, may be granted only in "extraordinary circumstances." See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-202 , 71 S.Ct. 209, 212-14 , 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.1986); see also In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 460, 463 (D.Conn.1977), aff'd, 580 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir.1978). 16 (A) Rule 60(b)(1) 17 Wu contends that because his criminal conviction was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law he is entitled to relief from the settlement agreement made pursuant to his civil forfeiture action.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Master Key Antitrust Litigation, in Re
77-7562.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 4, 1978.
580 F.2d 1045
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

580 F.2d 1045

Master Key Antitrust Litigation, In re

No. 77-7562, 77-7593

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

5/4/78

D.Conn., 76 F.R.D. 460

1

AFFIRMED[*]

*

Oral opinion delivered in open court in the belief that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. An oral opinion or a summary order is not citable as precedent. Local Rule Sec. 0.23