State v. Rodriguez-Montoya

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiffs new arguments, including “new arguments based on a different interpretation of the facts alleged” in the case, did not “constitute grounds for reconsideration of the court’s opinion”
• concluding that the plaintiff’s new arguments, including “new arguments based on a different interpretation of the facts alleged” in the case, did not “constitute grounds for reconsideration of the court’s opinion”
• explaining that \motions for reconsideration are not intended to allow a party to reassert arguments that the Comi already has considered\
• motions for reconsideration are not opportunities for parties to reassert arguments that the court has already heard
• “[A] motion for reconsideration of a final judgment functions not as another round of briefing in an open case, but as a request for extraordinary relief in a matter that is now closed.”
• “[A] motion for reconsideration of a final judgment functions not as another round of briefing in an open case, but as a request for extraordinary relief in a matter that is now closed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).