Blystone v. Horn

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Section 2254 petitioner’s Rule 59(e
• holding that evidence “that is not newly discovered, as so defined, cannot provide the basis for a successful motion for reconsideration”
• stating that motions for reconsideration “are not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case”
• holding motions for reconsideration “are not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case”
• stating that “[t]he scope of a motion for reconsideration . . . is extremely limited”
• explaining that “[t]he scope of a motion for reconsideration … is extremely limited” and may not “be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).