Eleventh Circuit· 9/21/2007

Arthur v. King

Citations

500 F.3d 1335
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22533
2007 WL 2744884

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “[t]he only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”
concluding that proffered evidence that could have been discovered previously was not “newly discovered” within the meaning of Rule 59(e)
holding the affidavit “could have been discovered during the five years after [the witness] had repudiated his first affidavit, and filed with the complaint.”
explaining that, in an appeal from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we must “accept[] the complaint’s allegations as true and constru[e] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”
noting that a motion for reconsideration cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment”
explaining that, in an appeal from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we must “accept[] the complaint’s allegations as true and constru[e] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Birch, Black, Barkett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

53 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.