Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes (1994)

green · 47 citation events across 11 courts. Showing the 31 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 31

Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199520102026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Gerber v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (2005)

Rule Authority · S.D. Tex. · 2 citations in this opinion

Indus., Co., 50 F.Supp.2d 619, 621 (E.D.Tex.1999); Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab., 4 F.Supp.2d 642, 645 (E.D.Tex.1997); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994) (Lake, J.).

green Marcia Michelle Green v. Residential Acceptance Corp., et al. (2026)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Roor International BV v. Stinky's Smoke Shop, LLC (2024)

Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.

Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

green Sanford v. Kirst (2024)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Dallas County, Texas v. Tim Sutton A/K/A Timothy Sutton A/K/A Timothy L. Sutton A/K/A Timothy Lee Sutton (2024)

Rule Authority · Tex. App.

Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1315 (S.D.

statute of limitations continued to run during period savings and loan association was under the supervision of the state; the claims did not belong to the state, but the association

green Pryor v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (2024)

Rule Authority · N.D. Miss.

Such a motion is not “the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments or advancing theories of the case that could have been presented earlier.” Resolution Trust Corporation v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

green Tennart v. Baton Rouge (2023)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Spann v. Bogalusa City Police Department (2021)

Rule Authority · E.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Autin v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (2021)

Rule Authority · E.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Board of Trustees of the Painters and Floorcoverers Joint Committee v. Super Structures Inc. (2021)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

A motion for reconsideration is not a 4 mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 5 F.2d 1386 , 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been 6 presented earlier,” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

green Guardado v. State of Nevada (2021)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

A motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for rearguing 7 issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 8 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been presented earlier,” Resolution 9 Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

footnotes omitted

green Apodaca-Fisk v. Allen (2021)

Rule Authority · W.D. Tex.

Similarly, motions filed under Rule 54(b) are “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment,” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004), or to support old arguments that are merely reconfigured, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Adams v. United Assoc of Jour (2020)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Lewis v. United States of America (2020)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Marc Harris v. Dean Meiling (2020)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

Motions for 3 reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution 4 Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

footnotes omitted

green Jimenez v. Grand Sierra Resort (2020)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

Motions for 26 27 1Judge Baldwin recommended that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted, his Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed with prejudice, and his pending 28 motions (ECF Nos. 3, 4) be denied as moot. 1 || reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution 2 || Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

footnotes omitted

green Entsminger v. Aranas (2020)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

No. 1J v. 27 28 1The Court has also reviewed Defendants’ response (ECF No. 194). 2 reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution 3 Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

footnotes omitted

green Bank of America, N.A. v. Twilight Homeowners Association (2020)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

A motion for reconsideration is not a 5 mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 6 F.2d 1386 , 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been 7 presented earlier,” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

green Berry v. Loancity (2019)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green Adams v. United Assoc of Jour (2019)

Rule Authority · M.D. La.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316, n.18 (S.D.

green In re PMC Marketing Corp. (2013)

Rule Authority · Bankr. D.P.R.

See e.g., Waye v. First Citizen’s National Bank, 846 F.Supp. 310 , 314 n. 3 (M.D.Pa.1994); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994) (footnotes omitted).

green Jaynes Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2012)

Rule Authority · D. Nev.

Motions for reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994) (footnotes omitted), and are not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F.Supp. 879, 889 (E.D.Va. 1977).

green eTool Development, Inc. v. National Semiconductor Corp. (2012)

Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.

Second, the court has noted that “motions for reconsideration should not be used to raise arguments that could, and should, have been made before entry of judgment or to re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party.” Helena Labs., 483 F.Supp.2d at 539 , quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994).

green Frazier v. Map Oil Tools, Inc. (2010)

Rule Authority · S.D. Tex.

See, e.g., Simon, 891 F.2d at 1159 (Rule 59(e) motions “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.”); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994) (“[Njeither a Rule 59 nor a Rule 60 motion provides the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments or advancing theories of the case that could have been presented earlier.”).

green Helena Laboratories Corp. v. Alpha Scientific Corp. (2007)

Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.

A motion for reconsideration is not “the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments or advancing legal theories that could have been presented earlier.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994).

green Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc. (2002)

Rule Authority · W.D. Tex.

Motions to reconsider “based on recycled arguments only [serve] to waste the resources of the court,” and are not the proper vehicle to “[rehash] old arguments or [advance] legal theories that could have been presented earlier.” Texas Instruments, 50 F.Supp.2d at 621 (quoting Sprint Communications, 899 F.Supp. at 284 and Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994)). 1 Instead, these motions serve a narrow purpose: to permit a party to correct mani…

green Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Hyundai Electronics Industries, Co. (1999)

Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.

May 1, 1997)); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994) (stating that a motion to reconsider is not “the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments or advancing legal theories that could have been presented earlier”); State v. Sprint Comm. Co., 899 F.Supp. 282, 284 (M.D.La.1995). “[L]itigants are expected to present their strongest case when the matter is first considered.

green Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (1997)

Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.

A motion to reconsider based on recycled arguments only serves to waste the resources of the court.”); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.Tex.1994) (motion to reconsider is not “the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments or advancing legal theories that could have been presented earlier”).

green United States v. Schooner Windspirit (1995)

Quote Authority · D.V.I.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310 (S.D.

"neither Rule 59 nor a Rule 60 motion provides the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments"

green Bluebeard's Castle, Inc. v. Delmar Marketing, Inc. (1995)

Quote Authority · D.V.I.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310 (S.D.Tex. 1994) ("neither Rule 59 nor a Rule 60 motion provides the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments").

"neither Rule 59 nor a Rule 60 motion provides the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments"

green In re: M/V Yochow (2021)

Cited · S.D. Tex. · signal: see

As a result, “[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to rehash rejected arguments or introduce new arguments.” LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405 , 412 n. 13 (5th Cir. 2005); see Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D.

noting that reconsideration is not “the proper vehicle for rehashing old arguments or advancing legal theories that could have been presented earlier.”