BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman.
In BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, the Supreme Court reviewed a case where plaintiffs, victims of terrorist attacks, sued BLOM Bank under the Anti-Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding Hamas. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint under Rule 60(b)(6), which was denied by the District Court. The Second Circuit reversed, but the Supreme Court held that Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman.
The Court held that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not change when a party seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
The case involves procedural rules regarding the reopening of a case and the amendment of complaints, which are related to due process rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman that support the summary and concepts above.
Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances.
The Rule 60(b)(6) standard does not change when a party seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint.
District courts' Rule 60(b) rulings are reviewed 'only for abuse of discretion.'