Bernard v. Herbert

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a trial court’s “otherwise broad discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders is narrowed in the context of motions to reconsider” subject matter jurisdiction issues
• concluding that district court’s statement in final judgment that it had jurisdiction to consider claim was erroneous in absence of findings required by Rule 52(a)
• holding that a trial court’s “otherwise broad discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders is narrowed in the context of motions to reconsider” issues of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction
• holding that a district court has “the power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory judgments . . . at any time prior to final judgment . . . .”
• holding that a trial court’s “otherwise broad discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders is narrowed in the context of motions to reconsider” issues of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction
• holding that “the district court abused its discretion in denying the [motion for reconsideration]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).