Opinion ID: 1038343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The superior court’s rulings

Text: Judge Collins denied Adventure Tours’ Rule 60(b) motion, finding that Adventure Tours’ claims were “not supported by significant evidence beyond [the Bylers’] own testimony — which was clearly rejected by the jury in reaching its verdict and found to be untruthful by the jury and this court.” The court concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of fraud. Moreover, the court found that “[t]here is absolutely no reason to believe that the verdict would have been different had Chief Nichol[s]’s testimony not been presented” and stated that “[a]t best, the instant attack on the jury verdict involves claims of an imperfect recollection about a largely inconsequential event.” The court did not address Adventure Tours’ claims of evidence tampering in its order. Judge Steinkruger denied Adventure Tours’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of its Rule 60(b) motion. Judge Steinkruger denied the motion on two bases — on procedural grounds because the motion sought to augment arguments related to the 60(b) motion, and on the merits because the court found that even if Adventure Tours’ “new evidence” was considered, it still failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained by fraud. -6- 6814