Gipson v. Mattox

How courts have described this case

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

• “Nor may a party properly utilize a motion to reconsider as a vehicle for rehashing arguments considered and rejected in the underlying order.”
• a party may not “utilize a motion to reconsider as a vehicle for rehashing arguments considered and rejected in the underlying order.”
• motions to reconsider “do not exist to permit losing parties to prop up arguments . . . to inject new ones, nor to provide evidence or authority previously 129, p. 5.
• court allowed unspecified “glitch” in assignment to be corrected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).