Jefferson v. Certain Underwriters Lloyd'S

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plan language that did not refer to “full or partial” recovery did not effectively disavow the make-whole doctrine
• holding “[d]istrict courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders”
• noting that while “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders[,] … the authority for hearing such motions has a common law basis … [and has] additional support in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)”
• “District courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment.”
• “Since [the moving party] had the evidence at the time of the court’s earlier decision, the district court’s refusal to consider this evidence is not clearly unjust.”
• “District courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).