Durkin v. Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that (1) “[the plaintiff’s] brief in support of his [Rule 59(e)] motion is no more than an expression of a view of the law contrary to that set forth in the [c]ourt’s opinion,” (2) “[w]hatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e
• observing that (1), “[the plaintiff’s] brief in support of his [Rule 59(e)] motion is no more than an expression of a view of the law contrary to that set forth in the [c]ourt’s opinion,” (2), “[w]hatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e
• denying reconsideration request where party’s “brief in support of his motion is no more than an expression of a view of the law contrary to that set forth in the [c]ourt’s opinion”
• denying reconsideration request where party’s “brief in support of his motion is no more than an expression of a view of the law contrary 18 to that set forth in the [c]ourt’s opinion”
• observing that plaintiff’s brief in support of his motion to alter or amend the judgment was “no more than an expression of a view of the law contrary to that set forth in the Court’s opinion,” and thus the court had no proper basis to alter or amend its previous order
• observing that plaintiff's brief in support of his motion to alter or amend the judgment was “no more than an expression of a view of the law contrary to that set forth in the Court’s opinion,” and thus the court had no proper basis to alter or amend its previous order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).