Harris v. Grantham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is improper to present new legal theories not raised with respect to the underlying motion for summary judgment in a motion for reconsideration
• recognizing that a “generalized grievance against allegedly illegal government conduct” is insufficient to confer standing
• holding that a court need not review arguments not specifically and distinctly raised in a party's opening brief
• holding that plaintiff failed to show injury in fact where he “failed to formulate even a basic business plan”
• holding that the plaintiff who offered no “evidence 19 that he is ‘able and ready’ to compete for, or receive, an OHA benefit” did not suffer an injury
• holding Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to raise arguments . . . for the first 19 time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).