Lonkoski v. Wisconsin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that successive Rule 59(e) motions are improper because “[w]ere such motions permitted, it is conceivable that a dissatisfied litigant could continually seek reconsideration and prevent finality to the judgment”
• holding that 11 successive Rule 59(e) motions are improper because “[w]ere such motions permitted, it is 12 conceivable that a dissatisfied litigant could continually seek reconsideration and prevent 13 finality of judgment”
• assuming that an improperly successive Rule 59(e) motion could be transformed into a Rule 60(b) motion
• stating that courts \may treat an untimely 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment as if it were a Rule 60(b) motion\ (quoting Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises, Inc. , 151 F.3d 465 , 470 (5th Cir. 1998) )
• noting that Rule 60(b)(1) is remedy for a legal mistake only where there is “an obvious error of law, apparent on the legal record” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 1040, 1043 (5th Cir.1987))
• affirming summary judgment because physician’s “inability to service patients at the hospital of his choice does not demonstrate an unreasonable adverse impact on…services for the entire county.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).