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.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 195 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 Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp. Anchor | green | “such motions must be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court.” | 63 |
| 2 | Carolco Pictures Inc. v. Sirota | green | “prevents the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.” | 51 |
| 3 | Catskill Development, L.L.C. v. Park Place Entertainment Corp. | green | “to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” | 30 |
| 4 | Weissman v. Fruchtman | green | “wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and decided.” | 24 |
| 5 | Jack Randell v. United States | green | “may not advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the court.” | 18 |
| 6 | Kregos v. Latest Line, Inc. | green | “a motion for reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” | 9 |
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.