Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Brunner

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a 20% reduction was appropriate “in light of Plaintiffs’ meaningful, but less than total, success”
• concluding that a 20% reduction was appropriate “in light of Plaintiffs’ meaningful, but less than total, success”
• concluding that a 20% reduction was appropriate “in light of Plaintiffs’ meaningful, but less than total, success”
• distinguishing Billups because the plaintiffs did not assert that the imposition of an identification requirement imposed an undue burden challenge to the Voter ID Law
• “Motions for reconsideration are not intended to re-litigate issues previously considered by the Court or to present evidence that could have been raised earlier.”
• “Motions for reconsideration are not intended to re-litigate issues previously considered by the Court or to present evidence that could have been raised earlier.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).