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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 48 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 Drapkin v. Mafco Consolidated Group, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Drapkin v. Mafco Consolidated Group, Inc. Anchor | green | “a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” | 30 |
| 2 | Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc. | green | “generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” | 9 |
| 3 | Drapkin v. Mafco Consolidated Group, Inc. | green | “a motion for reconsideration is 'an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” | 6 |
| 4 | Nakshin v. Holder | green | “the threshold for prevailing on a motion for reconsideration is high.” | 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.