Commonwealth v. Levengood, S.

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 timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a prior habeas decision was not a successive application
• holding that “courts will not address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued”
• holding that “Courts will not entertain arguments that could have been but were not raised before the just- issued decision.”
• holding that “Courts will not entertain arguments that could have been but were not raised before the just- issued decision.”
• holding that, under Rule 59(e), “courts will not address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued”
• holding that Rule 59(e) “motion[s] to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment” do not count as “second or successive habeas application[s]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).