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 65 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 Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc. Anchor | green | “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary measure and should be applied sparingly.” | 20 |
| 2 | McGuire v. Ryland Group, Inc. | green | “a party who fails to present its strongest case in the first instance generally has no right to raise new theories or arguments in a motion for reconsideration.” | 18 |
| 3 | American Home Assurance Company v. Glenn Estess & Associates, Inc., D/B/A Sales Consultants of Birmingham | green | “essentially afford a litigant two bites at the apple.” | 14 |
| 4 | Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc. | green | “motions for reconsideration should not be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been previously made.” | 13 |
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.