Bradley Timberland Resources v. Bradley Lumber Company

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a motion for reconsideration “serves the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence” (cleaned up)
• noting district court’s holding that a party “had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction and that its consent to removal was therefore not required,” and affirming denial of motion to remand because joinder was fraudulent
• noting district court’s holding that a party “had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction and that its consent to removal was therefore not required,” and affirming denial of motion to remand because joinder was fraudulent
• affirming denial of motion for reconsideration where plaintiff offered only newly discovered evidence that was irrelevant to the date its cause of action accrued and, therefore, did not undermine the district court’s dismissal of misrepresentation claims as time barred
• “A motion for reconsideration ‘serve[s] the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing] newly discovered evidence’ after a final judgment.” (quoting United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006
• affirming denial of motion for reconsideration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).