This Recent Development argues that the time has come to relax the assumption that erroneous final judgments caused in part by the petitioner’s own tactical choices categorically bar Rule 60(b)(6) relief. In doing so, it identifies trends that depart from the categorical approach. Some of these trends reflect the sound policy supporting Rule 60(b)(6) relief, while others run counter to the policy of such relief. This Recent Development also notes that there are growing inconsistencies with the analysis of Rule 60(b)(6) motions and urges that the federal judiciary make an effort to bring doctrinal clarity to the extraordinary circumstances requirement created by Ackermann. Finally, this Recent Development discusses two frameworks through which Rule 60(b)(6) relief can be analyzed.
The Not-So-Extraordinary Case of Aikens v. Ingram: Rule 60(B)(6) Relief from Final Judgments in the Fourth Circuit
DOWNLOAD PDF | 90 N.C. L. Rev.1212 (2012)