In Re: Benjamin Moore & Co., Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Danny Borden, Plaintiffs-Respondents

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 59(e) allows reconsideration when there are (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice
• noting that the grounds for a motion for reconsideration include: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
• enumerating the three grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e)
• “[W]ithout detracting from the force of the Tapscott principle that fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs is no more permissible than fraudulent misjoinder of defendants to circumvent diversity jurisdiction, we do not reach its application in this case.”
• discussing requirements of Rule 59(e)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).