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.
9 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 293 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc. Anchor | green | “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” | 76 |
| 2 | Milton B. Russell v. Delco Remy Division of General Motors Corporation, Saegertown Manufacturing Company and Jordan Chalmer | green | “the rule essentially enables a district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.” | 53 |
| 3 | Messenger v. Anderson | green | “in the absence of statute the phrase, 'law of the case,' as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court rendering them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to thei…” | 47 |
| 4 | Victor Robinson v. Jolinda Waterman | green | “a motion under rule 59(e) may be granted only if there has been a manifest error of fact or law, or if there is newly discovered evidence that was not previously available.” | 24 |
| 5 | Small v. Hunt | green | “must produce a 'legitimate justification for not presenting' the evidence during the earlier proceeding.” | 23 |
| 6 | Ciara Vesey v. Envoy Air, Incorporated | green | “relief under rule 59(e) is an 'extraordinary remedy reserved for the exceptional case.” | 23 |
| 7 | Yorke v. Citibank, N.A. (In Re BNT Terminals, Inc.) | green | “is not 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.” | 20 |
| 8 | Yorke v. Citibank, N.A. (In Re BNT Terminals, Inc.) | green | “a motion brought under rule 59(e) is not a procedural folly to be filed by a losing party who simply disagrees with the decision; otherwise, the court would be inundated with motions from dissatisfied litigants.” | 19 |
| 9 | Sosebee v. Astrue | green | “rule 59(e) motions offer district courts an opportunity to correct errors that may have crept into the proceeding, before the case leaves the district court for good.” | 8 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.