green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 10×
78.3 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2018–2025 · 3 courts ·
…the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
at p. 1442
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Parviz, Mahsa v. Federal Detention Center Miami
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Shenzhen Kinwong Electronic Co, Ltd v. Kukreja
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Deardorff v. Bolling
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kleckley v. State of Florida
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Forbes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Watkins v. Officer David Session
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Gates Builders Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
foreign law is a fact to be pleaded and proved; and when the contrary is not alleged, the law of the sister state will be assumed to be the same as law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harbor Communications, LLC v. Southern Light, LLC
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Reeves v. Alabama Department of Corrections
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Barbee v. Berryhill
the purpose of a rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abdur-Rahim Dib Dudar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
Such motions may not be used to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marlon J. Brown v. MSC Ship Management, Ltd., MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co., and Meridian 7 Ltd.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor Porfirio Baloa Diaz, et al. v. EDI Korta LLC, et al.
“Foreign law is a fact to be pleaded and proved; and when the contrary is not alleged, the law of the sister state will be assumed to be the same as Florida law.” Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Collins v. Collins, 36 So. 2d 417, 417 (1948); Bethell v. Peace, 441 F.2d 495, 497 (5th Cir. 1971) (explaining that “the party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it” and, if a party fails to make such allegations in a party’s pleadings or during the litigation as to what the relevant foreign law is, a district court is entitled to assume it is the same a…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
GEORGIOU FAMILY TRUST v. RUTHEN
Fla. 2020) (citing Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. E.H. Fortitude, Inc.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ankner v. United States
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jean-Baptiste v. City of Miami
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville PLLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patt v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
This includes arguments that were “previously available, but not pressed.” Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). “[T]he decision whether to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is ‘committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.’” Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106 , 1137 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting American Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., 763 F.2d 1237 , 1238–39 (11th Cir. 1985)); see O’Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044 , 1047 (11th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parsons v. Osborn
(2×)
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 704 n.7 (finding that the domestic relations exception did not apply to tort claims against a third party).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Curet v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
Because “[t]he purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available, but not pressed,” the Court will not permit Ulta to “complain about the entry of a summary judgment order that did not consider an argument they chose not to develop for the district court at the time of the summary judgment motions.” Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998); Johnson v. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Babb v. Gibson
The Court declines to grant a Rule 59(e) motion based on an argument “that was previously available, but not pressed.” Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. F.E.B. Corp.
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mochary v. Bergstein
Title Agency, LLC, 545 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2008) (“The domestic relations exception generally does not apply to third parties”); Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998) (same). 18 abstention doctrine articulated in American Airlines does.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oviedo v. Ramirez
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Obadiah v. United States
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Millennium Funding, Inc. v. 1701 Management, LLC.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Jd. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)); see also In re Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA Omega- 3 Mktg. & Sales Prac.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cox v. Fretwell (CONSENT)
Id. (citing Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 368, 370 (11th Cir. 1988))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
King v. Carlton
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maxwell v. Carnival Corporation
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Penick v. Harbor Freight Tools, USA, Inc.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joanna Burke v. Ocwen Financial Corporation
We have long held that litigants may not use motions to reconsider to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005); Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998); Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Gregory
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lab LLC v. iHealthcare, Inc
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sporea v. Regions Bank N.A.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kozyrev v. Ponomarenko
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taveras v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC.
“This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. Allen
Cf. Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating “[t]he purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is not to raise an argument that was previously available but not pressed.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Toups
This includes new arguments that were “previously available, but not pressed.” Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William M. McCavey v. Debra Elaine McCavey-Brnett
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir.1998) (citing Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 368, 370 (11th Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Guster Law Firm, LLC
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957-58 (11th Cir.2009) (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam)); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc) (“There is no burden upon the district court to distill every potential argument that could be made based upon the materials before it on summary judgment.”); Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. Indep.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jane Doe No. 8 v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Significantly, however, it is well-established that a Rule 59(e) motion may not “serve as a vehicle to relitigate old matters or present the case under a new legal theory or to give the moving party another ‘bite at the apple’ by permitting the arguing of issues and procedures that could and should have been raised prior to judgment.” Mincey, 206 F.3d at 1137 n. 69 (citation and alterations omitted); accord Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Linet however cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters, raise argument or …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Universal Insurance v. Warrantech Consumer Product Services, Inc.
E.g., Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441-43 (11th Cir.1998) (finding abstention inappropriate but certifying to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether there existed an action for interference with the parent-child relationship).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc.
(2×)
This prohibition includes new arguments that were "previously available, but not pressed." Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (motion to alter judgment properly denied where plaintiffs waited until after case was dismissed to raise argument that Virginia law applied, rather than Florida law).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Continuum Care Services, Inc.
Kellogg v. Schreiber (In re Kellogg), 197 F.3d 1116, 1120 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir.1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matusow v. Trans-County Title Agency, LLC
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir.1998); see also Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 704 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2206 (finding that the domestic relations exception did not apply to the plaintiffs tort claims against a third party).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matusow v. Trans Cty Title Agcy
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 704 n.7 (finding that the domestic relations exception did not apply to the plaintiff’s tort claims against a third party).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Feltman v. City National Bank (In Re Sophisticated Communications, Inc.)
Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir.1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co. v. Florida Evergreen Foliage
Stone v. Wall, 11th Cir., 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stone
v.
Wall
v.
Wall
96-4884.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 2, 1998.
Cited by 68 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Alabama (1)
Walter L. STONE, individually, and as Natural Guardian of S.P.S., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Georgene WALL, Gina Wall Masterson, Brock Green, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-4884.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 16, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 95-2588-CV-SM); Stanley Marcus, Judge.
Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, and WELLFORD*, Senior Circuit Judge.**
v.
Georgene WALL, Gina Wall Masterson, Brock Green, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-4884.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 16, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 95-2588-CV-SM); Stanley Marcus, Judge.
Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, and WELLFORD*, Senior Circuit Judge.**
PER CURIAM:
In this diversity suit, plaintiffs asserted a common law action for interference with a parent/child
relationship or abduction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), concluding that Florida recognized no claim for which relief
could be granted on those grounds. We certified the question to the Supreme Court of Florida, see Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1443 (11th Cir.1998), and asked:
Whether a cause of action exists for interference with the parent/child relationship where a third party (that is, a nonparent who has no custody rights over that child) intentionally abducts a minor child from a parent legally entitled to the child's custody?
The Supreme Court of Florida has answered "Yes." See Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1999).
Therefore, we VACATE the district court decision, dismissing this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and REMAND for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
* Honorable Harry W. Wellford, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).