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 5 cases, quoted by 367 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 Max's Seafood Cafe, By Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Max Quinteros.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Max's Seafood Cafe, By Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Max Quinteros Anchor | green | “correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” | 111 |
| 2 | Max's Seafood Cafe, By Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Max Quinteros | green | “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” | 65 |
| 3 | Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker | green | “as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided.” | 59 |
| 4 | Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker | green | “the court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” | 50 |
| 5 | Lazaridis v. Wehmer | green | “a proper rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” | 36 |
| 6 | Lazaridis v. Wehmer | green | “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” | 27 |
| 7 | Haymond v. Lundy | green | “motions for reconsideration are not to be used to reargue or relitigate matters already decided.” | 9 |
| 8 | Douris v. Schweiker | green | “because federal courts have a strong interest in finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.” | 7 |
| 9 | Haymond v. Lundy | green | “to reargue or relitigate matters already decided.” | 3 |
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.