Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Merrill v. Merrillgreen1 sentence2024Merrill, 449 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Me. 1982) (explaining that Rule 60(b) “permits the court ... to relieve a party from final judgment for any of the six reasons articulated motion for reconsideration of an order “shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2022P. 7(b)(5) provides that "[m]otions for reconsideration of an order shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." "Rule 7(b)(5) is intended to deter disappointed litigants from seeking to reargue points that were or could have been presented to the court on the underlying motion." Shaw v. Shaw, 2003 ME 153, 18 , 839 A.2d 714 (citation and quotation omitted). 1 As the court made clear, the Order was intended to resolve all outstanding discovery disputes. 2022P. 7(b)(5) provides that "[m]otions for reconsideration of an order shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." "Rule 7(b)(5) is intended to deter disappointed litigants from seeking to reargue points that were or could have been presented to the court on the underlying motion." Shaw v. Shaw, 2003 ME 153, 18 , 839 A.2d 714 (citation and quotation omitted). 1 As the court made clear, the Order was intended to resolve all outstanding discovery disputes. | 7 | 2014–2022 |
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Manning
green
2 sentences2020“Due to the severity of dismissal . . . and the constitutional implications of such an action . . . the trial court’s discretion in imposing [this] ultimate sanction is narrow indeed and will be given close scrutiny on appeal.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). 16 [¶34] A motion for reconsideration of an order “shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. 2020“Due to the severity of dismissal . . . and the constitutional implications of such an action . . . the trial court’s discretion in imposing [this] ultimate sanction is narrow indeed and will be given close scrutiny on appeal.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). 16 [¶34] A motion for reconsideration of an order “shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
U.S. Bank National Association v. Thomas Manning
green
2 sentences2023Benjamin Hartwell, Esq. :f Defendant-John Wall, Esq. ( "A motion for reconsideration of an order 'shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented."' U.S. Bank Na/'/ Ass'n. v. Mann;ng, 2020 ME 42 ,, 34, 228 A.3d 726 (quoting M.R. 2023Benjamin Hartwell, Esq. :f Defendant-John Wall, Esq. ( "A motion for reconsideration of an order 'shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented."' U.S. Bank Na/'/ Ass'n. v. Mann;ng, 2020 ME 42 ,, 34, 228 A.3d 726 (quoting M.R. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Steven M. McKeeman v. Christopher Duchaine
neutral
2 sentences2022McKeeman v. Duchaine, 2022 ME 23 , ¶ 8 n.2, 272 A.3d 300 . 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW Motions for reconsideration may only be utilized “to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. 2022McKeeman v. Duchaine, 2022 ME 23 , ¶ 8 n.2, 272 A.3d 300 . 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW Motions for reconsideration may only be utilized “to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ten Voters of Biddeford v. City of Biddeford
green
2 sentences2003Ten Voters of Biddeford v. City of Biddeford, 2003 ME 59, ¶ 11 , 822 A.2d 1196, 1201 . [¶ 8] Motions for reconsideration are restricted to situations in which the motion is “required to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. 2003Ten Voters of Biddeford v. City of Biddeford, 2003 ME 59, ¶ 11 , 822 A.2d 1196, 1201 . [¶ 8] Motions for reconsideration are restricted to situations in which the motion is “required to bring to the court’s attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented.” M.R. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.