Kenneth Stephens v. Skylar Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defaulted defendants have “forfeit[ed] the ability to contest the truth of facts asserted”
• noting that parties must “be able to rely on the rulings that progressively direct proceedings toward trial”
• recognizing its precedent had been “less than clear” about “what standard of review district courts should employ when faced with” a motion for reconsideration “in the context of a non-final order”
• explaining that Eleventh Circuit reviews such decisions for “abuse of discretion
• noting courts should not hesitate to revisit prior rulings if a movant can meet the significantly higher showing for reconsideration required under Rules 59(e) or 60(b)
• “[Wlhen ...a district court enters a non-final order, it should evaluate motions to reconsider that order under the standards inherent in Rule 54(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).