Christopher Stokes v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court’s denial of motion to reconsider in part because its purpose of “repeating arguments the district court had already rejected” was improper
• affirming district court’s denial of motion to reconsider in part because its purpose of “repeating arguments the district court had already rejected” was improper
• affirming district court’s denial of motion to reconsider in part because its purpose of “repeating arguments the district court had already rejected” was improper
• affirming denial of motion to reconsider in part because movant “belatedly 17 [brought] the DHS applications to the district court’s attention, even though the DHS 18 applications were available to [movant] at the time he resisted defendants’ summary 19 judgment motion”
• A plaintiff may not bring a state claim under the aegis of § 1983 . . . .”
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).