green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 · 2 courts ·
…the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Lewis
the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
General Instrument Corp. of Delaware v. Nu-Tek Electronics & Manufacturing, Inc.
the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Willow v. Sullivan
error on the face of evidence does not encompass a disputed issue of fact since, almost as a matter of definition, when facts are in dispute no single answer is evident.
cited
Cited "see"
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. PNC Bank, N.A.
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gallant v. Telebrands Corp.
See Confer v. Custom Eng’g Co. Employee Health Benefit Plan, 760 F.Supp. 75 , 77 (W.D.Pa.1991) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986)), aff'd in part, 952 F.2d 41 (3d Cir.1991). 16 The 4 March 1996 Order and Opinion was not a final judgment; it adjudicated only the issue of patent infringement alleged in Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez Flores v. Apfel
See Robinson v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1144, 1146 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Kasey v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 75, 79 (4th Cir.1993); and Coates v. Bowen, 875 F.2d 97, 101 (7th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc.
See, Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Khair v. Campbell Soup Co.
See generally Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Canale v. Yegen, 789 F.Supp. 147 (D.N.J.1992); Pelham v. United States, 661 F.Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Peoples Mortgage Co. v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
Peoples consulted with counsel The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that “in the absence of threats of actual bodily harm there can be no duress where the contracting party is free to consult with counsel.” Carrier v. William Penn Broadcasting Co., 426 Pa. 427, 431 , 233 A.2d 519 (1967) (citing Smith v. Lenchner, 204 Pa.Super. 500, 504 , 205 A.2d 626 (1964)); accord, Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 911 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Three Rivers Motors Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 522 F.2d 885, 891-92 (3d Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Products Division
Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 609 F.Supp. 451, 452-53 (S.D.N.Y.1984), modified on other grounds, 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir.1986)), aff'd, 948 F.2d 1529 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1310 , 117 L.Ed.2d 510 (1992); see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Products Division
Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 609 F.Supp. 451, 452-53 (S.D.N.Y.1984), modified on other grounds, 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir.1986)), aff'd, 948 F.2d 1529 (10th Cir.1991), ce rt. dismissed, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1310 , 117 L.Ed.2d 510 (1992); see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Howell Petroleum Corporation v. Leben Oil Corporation
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Willens v. University of Massachusetts, 570 F.2d 403, 406 (1st Cir.1978); see also Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 832 (10th Cir.1986). 37 AFFIRMED. 1 The district court also found there was no covenant running with the land that would provide plaintiff with a contractual right to an accounting 2 Both Leben and non-Leben defendants assert several grounds not reached by the district court on which they claim we can uphold summary judg…
discussed
Cited "see"
Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Leben Oil Corp.
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Willens v. University of Massachusetts, 570 F.2d 403, 406 (1st Cir.1978); see also Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 832 (10th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien, and Frankel
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Clifford v. Jacobs, 739 F.Supp. 957, 958-59 (M.D.Pa.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Derechin v. State University of New York
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); see also Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246 (7th Cir.), reh’g denied, 835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
University Patents, Inc. v. Kligman
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 910-911 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) (agreement to employ defendant for reasonable period of time provided adequate consideration for express agreement to assign patent rights).
discussed
Cited "see"
Susan Waltman v. International Paper Co.
(2×)
See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3rd Cir.1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Mas Marques v. Digital Equipment Corp., 637 F.2d 24 (1st Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William W. Boden
See United States v. Head, 783 F.2d 1422, 1427 (9th Cir.) (drug agents permissibly asked Terry suspect whether he had drugs in his vehicle), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Strand Electric Service Co. v. United States
The First State Bank of Matador, Tex. v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 537, 539 (1988); Reading Anthracite Co. v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 63, 66 (1985); see Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marvin O. Cruz-Lopez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
See Sagermark v. INS, 767 F.2d 645, 649 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986); Young v. United States Department of Justice, INS, 759 F.2d 450 , 456 n. 6 (5th Cir.1985); Carvajal-Munoz v. INS, 743 F.2d 562, 569 (7th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Ricci
Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Telfair v. Tandy
Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) (purpose of motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Telfair
Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) (purpose of motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Berardi v. Meadowbrook Mall Co.
See also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 911-912 (3rd Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) (which sets forth the principle that the opportunity to consult with counsel vitiates a duress defense, cites additional authority for this proposition,' and distinguishes cases such as Litten v. Jonathan Logan, Inc., 220 Pa.Super. 274 , 286 A.2d 913 (1971) where the presence of lawyers was of no assistance to the plaintiffs under the circumstances). 706 F.Supp. at 1222 (initial internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Environ Products, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.
See also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Leon KING, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee
See also Robinson v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1144 , 1146 & n. 3 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cross Timbers Oil Co. v. Rosel Energy, Inc.
Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir.1981); see also Harsco C orp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Burnett v. Western Resources, Inc.
Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir.1981); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luis Alberto MONTOYA-ULLOA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
See, e.g., Sagermark v. INS, 767 F.2d 645, 649 (9th Cir.1985)(defining persecution as the “infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ ... in a way regarded as offensive.”), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Degenhardt v. Dillon Co.
Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 404 , 581 A.2d 162, 167 (1990); Adams v. Adams, 414 Pa.Super. 634, 639 , 607 A.2d 1116, 1119 (1992), alloc. denied, 533 Pa. 617 , 619 A.2d 699 (1993); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 404 Pa.Super. 533, 536 , 591 A.2d 720, 720-721 (1991); Worldwide Auditing Services, Inc. v. Richter, 402 Pa.Super. 584, 593 , 587 A.2d 772, 777 (1991); see also, Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 911-912 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) (under Pennsylvania law, federal and state courts have regularly invoked the principle that the opp…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Freeze-Dry Products, Inc. v. Metro Park Warehouse, Inc.
Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir.1981); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Colbert v. United States
Co., 370 U.S. at 633 , 82 S.Ct. at 1390 ; see also Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 177 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Schiffer
See e.g., Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir.1985), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Freedlander, Inc. v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina
See also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 911-912 (3rd Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 , 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986) (which sets forth the principle that the opportunity to consult with counsel vitiates a duress defense, cites additional authority for this proposition, and distinguishes cases such as Litten v. Jonathan Logan, Inc., 200 Pa.Super. 274 , 286 A.2d 913 (1977) where the presence of lawyers was of no assistance to the plaintiffs under the circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Foley
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739-740 , 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1541-1542 , 75 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1983); see also United States v. Head, 783 F. 2d 1422, 1426-1428 (9th Cir.1986), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed. 2d 982 (1986); United States v. Finch, 679 F. 2d 1083 (4th Cir.1982); State v. Planz, 304 N.W. 2d 74 , 78-80 *216 (N.D.Sup.Ct. 1981); Pennsylvania v. Milyak, 508 Pa. 2 , 493 A. 2d 1346, 1348-1349 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Daniel Francei Gumbol v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See also Sagermark v. INS, 767 F.2d 645 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 2895 , 90 L.Ed.2d 982 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kadin Corp.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 85-1830.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 9, 1986.
Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.