Davidson v. Scully

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiff’s affirmation is “precluded” on a motion for reconsideration
• explaining that a motion for reconsideration is not to be used as “a substitute for appeal”
• “A motion for reconsideration should not be used ‘to put forward additional arguments which the movant could have made, but neglected to make before judgment.’”
• “A motion for reconsideration should not be used ‘to put forward additional arguments which the movant could have made, but neglected to make before judgment.’”
• “Although plaintiff might see this motion as a way to vent his frustration and point out where he believes the Court erred in its reasoning, that is not the purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.”
• “Although plaintiff might see this motion as a way to vent his frustration and point out where he believes the Court erred in its reasoning, that is not the purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).