Peniston v. Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the movant could not satisfy either Rule 59(e) or Rule 54(b) and therefore the preliminary injunction would remain in place
• deciding hearing was unnecessary where defendants did not request hearing or raise any “genuine issues of material fact”
• finding evidentiary hearing unnecessary to rule on motion for preliminary injunction where defendants did not request hearing or raise any “genuine issues of material fact”
• “[E]ven a Rule 54(b) motion cannot be used . . . to ‘present[] theories or 18 arguments that could have been advanced earlier.’” (third alteration in original) (citation omitted)
• “[A] Rule 54(b) motion cannot be used to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled or to present theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).