green
Positive treatment
10.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Berrospi v. Aldine ISD
“The denial of a motion for reconsideration of an 3 Case: 25-20533 Document: 32-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/08/2026 No. 25-20533 otherwise non-appealable order is itself non-appealable.” Clark v. Sanders, 98 F.3d 1337, 1337 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
1039 Constance, L.L.C. v. Chubb European Group SE
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Aug. 28, 2007) (internal citations omitted). 44 Hodge v. Engleman, 90 F.4th 840, 845 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Holguin v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 98 F.3d 1337, at *2 (5th Cir. 1996)) (per curium) (cleaned up). 45 Holguin, 98 F.3d at 2 . 46 Indeed, some of the exhibits offered in support of the parties’ arguments—for example, the Policy— could likely be considered under a motion to dismiss standard because they are referenced in Plaintiff’s Petition and central to its claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williford v. Stott
Jan. 13, 2015) (quoting Harrington v. Runyon, 98 F.3d 1337, 1337 (5th Cir.1996)). challenged, it will be treated as a 59(e) motion; if it is filed after twenty-eight days, it will be treated as a 60(b) motion.”7 The instant Motion was filed after twenty-eight days, so Rule 60(b) provides the applicable standard.
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. Tate County, Mississippi
See Holguin v. U.S. Dep't. of Army, 98 F.3d 1337 , 1996 WL 556767 , at *2 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Byrnes v. Byrnes
See, e.g., Clark v. Sanders (In re Reserve Production, Inc.), 98 F.3d 1337, at *1 (5th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (the district court granted the motion to withdraw the reference for the purposes of jury selection and jury trial, but kept the reference intact for all pretrial matters); Mastro v. Rigby, 764 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court denied plaintiff's motion to withdraw the reference as premature, concluding that the bankruptcy court was “manifestly more experienced” at overseeing the pretrial preparation of adversary proceedings); Wagner v. Drexman (In re Vaughan Co.), 2015 W…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mazurek
v.
Amwest Savings Assoc
v.
Amwest Savings Assoc
95-11217.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 4, 1996.
98 F.3d 1337
Unpublished
Mazurek
v.
Amwest Savings Assoc.
NO. 95-11217
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Sept 03, 1996
Appeal From: N.D.Tex., No. 4:95-CV-23-A
1
AFFIRMED.