Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Aikens v. Ingram

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided July 13, 2011No. 08-2278APublished

1ConcurrenceDiaz, Circuit Judge

I am pleased to join in full Judge Niemeyer’s well-reasoned majority opinion. I write separately to address a few of the contentions raised by my dissenting colleagues.

At a global level, I am concerned by the dissenters’ application of the abuse-of-discretion standard, which all agree is the prism through which we must measure the district court’s action in this case. The principal dissent authored by Judge King posits that the en banc majority would readily consent that the district court “certainly had the discretion” to grant Aikens’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion without fear of reversal. Post at…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Walter L. Compton, Jr. v. Alton Steamship Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
  2. Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound ConferenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Thompson v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  4. Evans v. Eaton Corp. Long Term Disability PlanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2008
  5. United States v. Michigan National Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API