green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.2 score
“a 26 party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the court's 27 decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 28 1 rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Williams v. Chau
a 24 party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the court's 25 decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 26 rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Green v. Solis
a 26 party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the court's 27 decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before 28 1 rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
SLEEP TIGHT DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, LLC v. AETNA, INC.
a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion or to present evidence which should have been raised before.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sphere Drake, P.L.C. v. 101 Variety, Inc.
need not indemnify its insured if the conduct for which the insured is 431 found liable does not come within the scope of the policy.
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. Ricci
See id. (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990)).
cited
Cited "see"
Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. Of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
White v. City of Trenton
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. Of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Telfair v. Tandy
See id. (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990)); see also Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D.Pa.2001) (a motion for reconsideration may not be used as a means to reargue unsuccessful theories).
discussed
Cited "see"
Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc. v. New Jersey
See Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestown Tp., 996 F.Supp. 409, 442 (D.N.J.1998) (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990)); see also Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D.Pa.2001) (a motion for reconsideration may not be used as a means to reargue unsuccessful theories).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Telfair
See id. (citing Bermingham, v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), affd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990)); see also Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (a motion for reconsideration may not be used as a means to reargue unsuccessful theories).
discussed
Cited "see"
Toolasprashad v. Grondolsky
See Bowers, 130 F.Supp.2d at 612 (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994), and G-69, 748 F.Supp. at 275 ); Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J.1988); see also NL Indus., Inc., 935 F.Supp. at 516 (“Reconsideration motions ... may not be used to re-litigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment”).
cited
Cited "see"
Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International, Inc.
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); Carteret Sav.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, Act, Inc.
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd mem., 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, *613 and ‘recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.’ ”) (citation omitted); Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Compaction Systems Corp.
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Martinez v. Quality Value Convenience, Inc.
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Meachum v. Temple University-Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J.1992), affd 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestown Township
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd mem., 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.”) (quotation omitted); Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rouse v. Plantier
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834 , 859 n. 8 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd mem., 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.’ ”) (citation omitted); Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A, Inc., 680 F.Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
DeJoy v. Comcast Cable Communications Inc.
See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of *473 Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 846 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arellano v. Santos
“The PLRA requires inmates to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit: ‘No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... by a 26 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 27 remedies as are available are exhausted.’” Fordley v. Lizarraga, 18 F.4th 344 , 351 (9th Cir. 2021) (italics added) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 28 1 ||N.J. 1992), aff'd 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show 2 ||more than a disagreement with the Court’s decis…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Liberty Mutl Ins Co v. James Sweeney
(2×)
See, e.g., Britamco Underwiters, Inc. v. C.J.H., Inc., 845 F.Supp. 1090, 1094 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pepe v. Rival Co.
See Moving Brief at 20 n.4; see also Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 854-55 (D.N.J.1992), aff’d without op’n, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Borough of Sayreville v. Union Carbide Corp.
Turbe v. Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir.1991); see also Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. C.J.H., Inc., 845 F.Supp. 1090, 1092 (E.D.Pa), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir.1994) (table); Southmark Prime Plus, L.P. v. Falzone, 776 F.Supp. 888, 891 (D.Del.1991); 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Allen (Christopher)
v.
Mays (Berwyn Lucretia)
v.
Mays (Berwyn Lucretia)
93-5757.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Aug 3, 1994.
Published
Allen (Christopher)
v.
Mays (Berwyn Lucretia)
NO. 93-5757
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Aug 03, 1994
Appeal From: D.N.J.,
Ackerman, J.
1
AFFIRMED.