Claire W. Glendening Boryan Lee Glendening Koss Alicia B. Glendening Tennent v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming denial of Rule 59(e) motion where the new evidence “could have been discovered with due diligence prior to judgment”
• stating that to obtain relief under Rule 60, a party must demonstrate, among other things, that newly discovered evidence is “material,” and either “likely to produce a new outcome if the case were retried” or “would require the judgment to be amended”
• affirming denial of Rule 59(e) motion where “sufficient indicia of the [evidence at issue] existed . . . such that it could have been discovered with due diligence prior to judgment”
• discussing newly discovered evidence in the context of Rules 59 and 60
• “[T]he movant [under Rule 59(e) ] is obliged to show not only that this evidence was newly discovered or unknown to it until after the hearing, but also that it could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced such evidence at the hearing.”
• in Rule 59 and 60 context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).