Servants of the Paraclete v. Does

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a party cannot use a motion to reconsider to “advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing”
• affirming district court's decision to disregard arguments and evidence presented for the first time in a motion for reconsideration
• holding motions for reconsideration are “inappropriate vehicles to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion”
• noting reconsideration is not appropriate based on “new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion”
• explaining that “a successive Rule 60(b) motion . . . [is an] inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion”
• stating it is “inappropriate … to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).