United States v. Jasin (2003)
green
· 45 citation events
across 9 courts.
Showing the 41 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
HIRTLE CALLAGHAN HOLDINGS INC. v. THOMPSON (2021)
To show clear error or manifest injustice, a party “must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the court.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
United States v. Rich (2004)
United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 680 (E.D.Pa.2003).
green
Marsh, Jr. v. Stratton (2025)
However, “motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant ... could have made but neglected to make before judgment.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (E.D.
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted
green
Haar v. Sage (2025)
However, “motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant . . . could have made but neglected to make before judgment.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (E.D.
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted
green
Myers v. Little (2025)
In such a motion, “parties are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
internal citation and quotations omitted
green
Nottingham v. Miele (2025)
However, “motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant . . . could have made but neglected to make before judgment.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (E.D.
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted
green
RICKETTS v. TITUSVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT (2024)
“In order to show clear error or manifest injustice, the [movant] must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court — ‘[p]arties are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided.’” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
citations omitted
green
MORRIS v. SCHEUER (2024)
Black Bear Energy Servs., 2021 WL 4751746 , at *3 (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
WILLIAMS v. THE PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (2023)
A successful motion for reconsideration requires the movant to “demonstrate a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,’ or that the court overlooked arguments that were previously made.” Black Bear Energy Servs., 2021 WL 4751746 , at *3, quoting United States y, Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
Pa. May 6, 2014) (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
Derry v. Blackman (2023)
However, “motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant . . . could have made but neglected to make before judgment.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 677 (E.D.
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted
green
IVY v. WETZAL (2023)
A successful motion for reconsideration requires the movant to “demonstrate a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,’ or that the court overlooked arguments that were previously made.” Black Bear Energy Servs., 2021 WL 4751746 , at *3 (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
BRUMMELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (2022)
Pa. 2019) (“However, ‘motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant . . . could have made but neglected to make before judgment.’”) (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (E.D.
United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
GAINES v. MARSH (2021)
Mar. 26, 2021) (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
Harvey v. Cline (2021)
United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
WASHINGTON v. GILMORE (2021)
United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
McClenton v. Doe (1) Ms. Ryan (2021)
United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
Ndaula v. Clinton County Correctional Facility (2021)
United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
green
MADER v. UNION TOWNSHIP (2020)
Pa. Nov. 10, 2015) (Conti, C.J.) (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
Clear Error and Manifest Injustice “A finding of clear error requires a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
DuBois, J.
green
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. v. HARTLEIB (2020)
See, e.g., Palladino v. Governor of Pa., 589 F. App’x 61, 64 (3d Cir. 2014) (noting that motions to reconsider “may not be used to relitigate old matters”); United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
“In order to show clear error or manifest injustice, the [moving party] must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court—‘parties are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided.’” (citation omitted)
green
Begnoche v. Thompson (2020)
Moreover, “motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant... could have made but neglected to make before judgment.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 677 (E.D.
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted
green
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. HENDERSON (2019)
“A finding of clear error requires a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
citations and quotation marks omitted
green
I.M. WILSON, INC. v. OTVETSTVENNOSTYOU \GRICHKO\"" (2019)
A finding of “clear error” requires a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
quoting Lasley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 , 242 (2001)
green
JACKSON v. CORIZON MEDICAL STAFF (2019)
A finding of “clear error” requires a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
quoting Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 , 242 (2001)
green
Johnson v. Roskosci (2019)
Pa. Apr. 3, 2019) (quoting United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp. 2d 670, 677 (E.D.
green
Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co. (2016)
United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003).
In such a motion, “parties are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
green
Plymouth County v. MERSCORP, Inc. (2012)
Litig., 815 F.Supp.2d 649, 651 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)); United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003).
green
Krasny v. Bagga (In Re Jamuna Real Estate, LLC) (2008)
U.S. v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003) By definition, evidence which could have been offered earlier is not newly-discovered.
green
United States v. McHugh (2008)
To decide that it made a “clear error,” a court must have a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake [was] committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 , 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452 , 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001); cf. United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003) (applying Easley in the context of a motion for reconsideration).
green
STURSBERG v. Morrison Sund PLLC (2021)
See United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
“In order to show clear error or manifest injustice, the [moving party] must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court.” (emphasis added)
green
Joshua Dwane Bacon v. Luzerne County, et al. (2026)
See United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.
a successful motion for reconsideration requires the movant to demonstrate a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed[,]” or that the court overlooked arguments that were previously made
Pa. 1994); see also United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
same
green
FIRST INVESTORS NEVADA REALTY, LLC v. EIS, INC. (2021)
Pa. June 13, 2008) (“[A] Motion for Reconsideration cannot be granted based on . . . newly raised arguments that could have previously been asserted”); accord United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
“In order to show clear error or manifest injustice, the [moving party] must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court.” (emphasis added)
green
MCCOWAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (2021)
See United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
“In order to show clear error or manifest injustice, the [moving party] must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court.’” (emphasis added)
green
LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. LEBRUN (2020)
Pa. June 13, 2008) (“[A] Motion for Reconsideration cannot be granted based on . . . newly raised arguments that could have previously been asserted”); accord United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D.
“In order to show clear error or manifest injustice, the [moving party] must base its motion on arguments that were previously raised but were overlooked by the Court.” (emphasis added)
green
Jarzyna v. Home Properties, L.P. (2016)
Said differently, a motion for reconsideration may not be used to give a litigant a “second bite at the apple,” Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir.1995), and therefore should not be “grounded on a request that a court rethink a decision already made.” In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig., 756 F.Supp.2d 637, 639 (E.D.Pa.2010); see also United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003) (“[P]arties are not free to relitigate issues whic…
green
Charleswell v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (2011)
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa.1993); see also United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003) (“Parties are not free to relitigate issues which the court has already decided.”).
green
In Re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation (2010)
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 *640 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa.1993); see also United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003) (“Parties are not free to relitigate issues which the court has already decided.”).