Cited by

v. Symington, ¶ 22 (App. 2000) (finding disclosure failures to be misconduct warranting Rule 60 relief from judgment in same action); Linder v. Brown & Herrick, –07 (App. 1997) (describing “other remedies” available to litigants who believe opposing counsel are guilty of misconduct in litigation, including fi

v. Symington, ¶ 23 (App. 2000).

¶ 23 (App. 2010) (rejecting argument that information would have been disclosed at deposition “if opposing counsel had simply asked the correct questions”); Norwest Bank (Minnesota) v. Symington, ¶ 18 (App. 2000) (rejecting argument that opponent would have found nondisclosed evidence “if [he] had been diligent”).

v. Symington, ¶ 11 (App. 2000).

v. Symington, ¶ 36 (App. 2000); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A (1979).

v. Symington, –87, ¶¶ 15–23 (App. 2000).

v. Symington, –86, ¶ 17 (App. 2000) (“[A]t the outset of a case the parties must make a full .

v. Symington, ¶ 11 (App. 2000) (applying Civil Rule of Procedure 60, the civil equivalent to Rule 85).

“[A] failure to disclose evidence that may be relevant, regardless of whether the disclosure was required by a specific discovery request or by the general duty of Rule 26.1, can constitute misconduct under Rule 60(c)(3).” Norwest Bank (Minn.) v. Symington, ¶ 21 (App. 2000).

v. Symington, ¶ 26 n.1 (App. 2000); (a sufficient basis for denying a new trial motion may be an insufficient basis for denying rule 60(c) relief).

v. Symington, ¶¶ 19, 22, (holding an inadvertent discovery violation constitutes misconduct under 2 Based on the Consent Agreement, in which Huth acknowledged his inspection fell below professional standards, Vidales has demonstrated a meritorious claim that she was not able to fully prese

v. Symington, -88, ¶¶ 20-32 , -08 (App.2000) (recognizing that the failure to disclose information that may be relevant may constitute misconduct justifying relief from a judgment).

v. Symington, -86, ¶ 17 , -06 (App. 2000) (“[A]t the outset of a case the parties must make a full ...

v. Symington, ¶ 26 , that relief under “Rule 60(c)(3) does not require a showing that the outcome of the case would have been different but for the nondisclosure.” He argues that Symington only applies to cases involving judgments on the merits, not to a decree of dissolution entered after the pa

v. Symington, quoting Patent Scaffolding Co. v. William Simpson Constr.