4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 30 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 Akeva L.L.C. v. Adidas America, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Akeva L.L.C. v. Adidas America, Inc. Anchor | green | “(1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) there is additional evidence that was not previously available; or (3) the prior decision was based on clear error or would work manifest injustice.” | 9 |
| 2 | South Carolina v. United States | green | “to raise new arguments or evidence that could have been raised previously.” | 9 |
| 3 | South Carolina v. United States | green | “nor should such a motion be used to raise new arguments or evidence that could have been raised previously.” | 7 |
| 4 | South Carolina v. United States | green | “however, a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order should not be used to rehash arguments the court has already considered merely because the movant is displeased with the outcome.” | 5 |
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.