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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 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 Fernandez-Vargas v. Pfizer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fernandez-Vargas v. Pfizer Anchor | green | “a district court has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders, and we encourage it to do so where error is apparent.” | 8 |
| 2 | Davis v. Lehane | green | “a court should grant a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order only when the movant demonstrates (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error of law in the first order.” | 6 |
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.