Edwards v. Kemp

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a motion for reconsideration is “not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled”
• observing that a Rule 59(e) motion is not “an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled,” and explaining that the moving party “must estab- lish more than simply [its] continued belief that the court’s decision was erroneous”
• \A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.\
• “A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.”
• “A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.”
• “A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).