Rubin v. Sterling Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that court acted within its discretion in refusing to hear evidence in post-trial motion that could have been proffered at trial
• recognizing that “[d]isposition of a Rule 59 motion is committed to the court’s sound discretion,” and finding no abuse of discretion in court’s rejection of party’s attempt to submit evidence in Rule 59 motion that could have been submitted at trial
• concluding trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to hear evidence in post-trial motion where proponent “had ample opportunity to elicit this evidence at trial”
• stating that motions to reconsider are not designed to relieve a party from its own fault or neglect, and trial court has wide discretion in ruling on such motions
• factual findings will be upheld on appeal unless there is no credible evidence to support finding
• we will not disturb trial court’s findings if supported by any credible evidence, nor its conclusions if reasonably supported by findings and law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).