Davis v. Lehane

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that interlocutory orders are not final and are subject to revision and amendment
• explaining that interlocutory orders are not final and are subject to revision and amendment
• denying motion for reconsideration filed thirteen years after the underlying interlocutory decision
• “When faced with a motion for reconsideration, a district court must balance the need for finality against the duty to render just decisions.”
• “The motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to improve upon his arguments or try out new arguments; nor is it properly a forum for a party to vent his dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “In order to balance the competing interests of finality and justice, a motion for reconsideration should only be granted if the movant demonstrates (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).